IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 2647 of 2011(E) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. BISMI, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.BABY, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT "SRUTHY", KALLAMAM, PANNIYODU P.O. 2. MUMTHAS, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.AISHA BEEVI, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT BISMINA MANZIL, THACHANCODE, VINOBHA NIKETHAN PO. 3. SIVAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, CONSTRUCTION WORKER, S/O.SURYA, LEKSHMI VILAS, THACHANCODE, VINOBHANIKETHAN P.O. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001. 2. KSEB, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, NEDUMANGADU-695018. 4. SMT.SULOCHANA, TITTO BHAVAN, THACHAMCODE, VINOBHANIKETHAN P.O., NEDUMANGADU- 695018. 5. RAGHAVA PANICKER, THACHAMCODE ROADARIKATH VEEDU, NONOBHANIKETHAN P.O., ARYANCODE, NEDUMANGADU- 695018. 6. SMT.OMANA AMMA, SHIBU NIVAS, PAVATHOOR, PACHA PALODE P.O., NEDUMANGADU- 695018. ...2/- WP(C).No. 2647 of 2011(E) -2- 7. SMT.SARASWATHI AMMA, SATHEESH SADANAM, THACHAMCODE, VINOBHA NIKETHAN P.O., NEDUMANGADU- 695018. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN R6 BY ADV. SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 2647 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF ORDER WITH NO. S1.51027/09 DATED 17.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH SKETCH. EXT.P3 : COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.7.2009 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.7.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 20620/2009 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2009. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGADU WITH SKETCH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(a) : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY THIS RESPONDENT WITH THE HELP OF A RETIRED SURVEYOR. EXT.R3(a) : A SKETCH SHOWING THE ELECTRIC LINE ROUTE AND PATHWAY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2647 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order passed by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The fourth respondent, a resident of Tholicodu Grama Panchayat submitted an application to the third respondent to provide electricity connection to her residence bearing door No.TP VII/ 521. Petitioners 2 and 3 and Sri.Biju Lal the predecessor-in- interest of the first petitioner objected to the proposal to draw the electricity line along the boundaries of their lands to the residence of the fourth respondent. The third respondent thereupon moved the District Magistrate under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act for permission to draw the line along the boundaries of the land belonging to the petitioners. Upon receipt of notice from the District Magistrate, petitioners 2 and 3 and the predecessor-in-interest of the first petitioner objected to the proposal to draw the line along the route proposed by the third respondent on the ground that if the line WPC No.2647/2011 2 is drawn as suggested by the third respondent, they will be put to serious prejudice. In the meanwhile, the first petitioner purchased the property belonging to Sri. Biju Lal, one among the objectors. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, she was also put on notice and heard. She raised a contention that if the line is drawn along the boundary of her land, she will be disabled from putting up a house therein. 3. While the issue was pending before the District Magistrate, the third respondent submitted an alternate proposal to draw the line through the lands belonging to respondents 5 to 7. A report was thereupon called for from the Tahsildar, Nedumangad Taluk who recommended that the line can be drawn through the properties of respondents 5 to 7. The District Magistrate considered the objections raised by the objectors and by the impugned order, permitted the third respondent to draw the line along the original route namely through the boundaries of the lands belonging to the petitioners. The District Magistrate also rejected the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Nedumangad Taluk in view of the objection raised by the Assistant Executive Engineer, the third respondent, to the feasibility of drawing the electricity line along the alternate route. WPC No.2647/2011 3 The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. I heard Sri.G.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board, Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Sri.T.Reghunath, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the objections raised by them before the District Magistrate and contended that if the line is drawn as proposed by the third respondent, along the route 'EFGHI' to provide electricity connection to the residence of the fourth respondent, the petitioners will be put to serious prejudice. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent contended that the proposal is to draw the line along the boundaries of the lands belonging to the petitioners and that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to them either in the matter of residing in their houses or putting up a new building in the land belonging to the first petitioner. The learned Government WPC No.2647/2011 4 Pleader also made available the files leading to Ext.P1. The files contain a sketch submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Nedumangad showing the proposed route 'EFGHI'. The sketch and the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer disclose that from an existing post at point 'I' the electricity line is proposed to be drawn along the boundaries of the lands belonging to the petitioners for providing electricity connection to the residence of the fourth respondent. Ext.P8 report submitted by the Tahsildar, Nedumangad Taluk indicates that the alternate proposal is to draw the line through the lands belonging to respondents 5 to 7. Though in the said report it is stated that the line can be drawn through the boundaries of the lands belonging to respondents 5 to 7, the third respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer had during the course of the hearing before the District Magistrate pointed out that the route originally proposed is technically more feasible and the shortest. 5. In my opinion, as the two proposals are to draw the line along the boundaries of the properties belonging to the parties namely the boundaries of the lands belonging to the petitioners 1 to 3 on the one hand and the boundaries of the lands belonging to WPC No.2647/2011 5 respondents 5 to 7 on the other and as the route originally proposed namely along the boundaries of the lands belonging to the petitioners is technically more feasible and the shortest, it cannot be said that the order passed by the District Magistrate is perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have no case that the line is proposed to be drawn across their properties. In fact, the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board that the proposal is to draw the line through the boundaries of the lands belonging to the petitioners is not disputed. Further, it is brought to my notice that the posts have already been erected at the points 'EFGHI' and what remains is stringing of the wire and its energisation. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P1. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.2647/2011 6 After the writ petition was disposed of, it was brought to my notice that the name of the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent (Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair) has been wrongly mentioned as Sri.T.Reghunath in the cause title and in paragraph 4 of the judgment delivered on 25.5.2011. I thereupon directed the Registry to post the writ petition today for being spoken to. The Registry has also affirmed that the name of the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has been wrongly mentioned in the judgment and in the cause title. In such circumstances, the name of the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent in the writ petition shall stand corrected as Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair. P.N.RAVINDRAN, 8.6.2011 (JUDGE) vps