IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 11262 of 2010(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RADHAMANI,D/O.KOCHU,PADINJARECHIRAYIL, MULLARINGADU KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI KURIAN SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,THODUPUZHA 2. SUNNY,ELAMCHINGATHU HOUSE, MULLARINGADU KARA(PO),VANNAPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 3. SAJAN THOMAS,EEDAKAYIL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU KARA(PO),VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 4. MANI PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU KARA(PO), VANNAPURAM VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA. * ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED. * ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI,COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU. ( IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 9/4/2010 IN I.A.5019/2010) R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.11262/2010-G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASING PROPERTY ENTERED IN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RAJAPPAN DATED 21/11/2009. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ASS.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KSEB TO DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI DATED 12/08/2009. P3 COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY ASS.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED NIL. P4 COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, VANNAPPURAM 15/01/2010. P5 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/01/2010. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI DATED 18/03/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ELECTRIC LINE ROUTE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.11262 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the owner in possession of about 60 cents of land in Vannappuram Village has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order of the fifth respondent in the matter of granting electrical connection to the residential building of the second respondent. The first respondent took steps to draw lines for granting electrical connection to the second respondent's residential building on his application. However, the routes proposed by the first respondent were objected to by the neighbours of the second respondent including the petitioner herein. The petitioner contends that there was no proposal, originally, to draw line through her property and it was decided to deviate from it only when certain other neighbours raised their objections against the proposal to draw electric lines through their property. Ultimately, based on the objections raised in the matter of drawing lines, the matter was referred before the fifth respondent. All the persons concerned including the petitioner herein were served with notice and thereafter the fifth respondent passed Ext.P6 order. Prior to the passing of Ext.P6 order the fifth respondent had inspected the spot and ascertained about the feasibility of the proposed route as also alternate route suggested by the WP(C).No.11262/2010 2 petitioner. After taking into account the comparative convenience and also the least inconvenient and least expensive route, the fifth respondent allowed the first respondent to draw line through the PQ line marked in Ext.R1(a). Thus, evidently, sanction was accorded for drawing of electric line through the route referred to in Ext.R1(a) as E2 i.e., the route that is passing through the property belonging to the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even going by Ext.R1(a) line could be drawn for the purpose of granting electrical connection to the second respondent's residential building through the routes shown as E3 and E1 in Ext.R1(a). The learned standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that the said routes besides being more expensive would result in more inconveniences to more persons. In fact, the fifth respondent had inspected the spot and after considering the alternative routes and upon finding that the route through E2 is the one which is least inconvenient and least expensive that sanction was accorded for drawing lines through E2. Therefore, the said decision of the fifth respondent cannot be said to be perverse, it is submitted. It is further submitted that the said decision of the fifth respondent is not infected with illegalities and there is no justification for interfering with the same. True that, there may be some other routes WP(C).No.11262/2010 3 through which lines could be drawn to the residential house of the second respondent, but, when the fifth respondent who had inspected the spot and considered the feasibility of drawing lines through other alternative routes entered into a conclusion that the route through E2 is the more convenient and less expensive, I do not think that this Court should interfere with such a finding especially when the petitioner had failed to show that such a decision is, too perverse, warranting interference by this Court. The mere inconveniences likely to cause to the petitioner cannot be a reason for delaying or denying supply of electrical connection to the second respondent's residential building. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that Ext.P6 does not call for any interference. I find no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed . C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS