IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1773 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. RAJAN.K.S., S/O.SIVAN PILLAI, KAYYALAKKAKATHU HOUSE, MAZHUKEERKEEZHUMURI, KALLISSERY.P.O., THIRUVANVANDOOR, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. AMBI SREEKUMAR, W/O.SREEKUMAR.V.R., VALLAVUMKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, THENGELIMURI, KUTTOOR.P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. K.S.SURESH, S/O.SIVAN PILLAI, KAYYALAKKAKATHU HOUSE, MAZHUKEERKEEZHUMURI, KALLISSERY.P.O., THIRUVANVANDOOR, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. PIN-688 001. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB CHENGANOOR, PIN-689 121. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, KALLISSERY, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN-689 121. 5. MONCY, PATTOMTHUNDATHIL HOUSE, MAZHUKEERKEEZHUMURI, KALLISSERY.P.O., THIRUVANVANDOOR, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN-689 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1773 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is under challenge in this writ petition. By that order, the Additional District Magistrate directed the Kerala State Electricity Board to provide electricity connection to the residence of the beneficiary, the fifth respondent herein, by drawing the electricity line through a pathway used by the beneficiary and along the properties of the beneficiary herself. 2. A reading of Ext.P6 order indicates that the line is proposed to be drawn through an existing pathway. The only objection raised by the objectors was that the pathway was formed after trespassing upon the property belonging to the second respondent's husband. The case set out by the petitioners in Exts.P3 and P4 is that the line can be drawn through an alternate route. The petitioners have not disputed the fact that the proposal is to draw the line through an existing pathway. Such being the state of affairs, the petitioners WPC No.1773/2011 2 cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order. I accordingly hold that the challenge to Ext.P6 is without any merit. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.1773/2011 3 WPC No.1773/2011 4