IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12323 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. N.K.KARUNAKARAN ADIYODI, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR,AGED ABOUT 68 YERAS, SREELAKSHMI NIVAS,MADTHIL, IRITTY P.O., THALASSERY TALUK. 2. SMT.CHERUVARI NANI, D/O.AMBU,CHERUVARI HOUSE, PAYAM AMSOM DESOM P.O.IRITTY,THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.T.P.SAEED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, IRITTY P.O.,THALASSERY TALUK. 2. THAMAS MALIKAPPARAMBIL,MADATHIL, P.O.IRITTY,THALASERY TALUK. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,KANNUR, P.O.KANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.12323 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are challenging Ext.P2 order passed by 3rd respondent, whereby an electric line has been permitted to be drawn through the property of the petitioners so as to provide power supply to the beneficiary ie. second respondent, without any regard to alternate route suggested by petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the line was originally drawn along the northern boundary of the property of the 1st petitioner, to provide electric connection to the second petitioner. It is now being further taken over through the above properties to the property of the second respondent which is situated on the southern side of the property of second petitioner. The specific case of the petitioners as put forth in the writ petition is that, on the southern side of the property of the petitioners, there is a path way leading to the properties of the second respondent and several other persons. The said pathway is being used for the free ingress and egress by the second respondent as well as others who have been assigned the excess land in the WPC. No.12323/10 2 area and are residing in the concerned properties. It is the said alternate route that was suggested by petitioners, was considered by 3rd respondent and inspected by the concerned authority as well. However, after taking note of the alternate route, the only reason stated in Ext.P2 order, to reject the same, while accepting the proposal made by first respondent is only that, if the line is to be drawn through the pathway (alternate route) it has to be drawn to an extent of '150 m', whereas, if the line is to be drawn through the property of the petitioners it will only be 40 m 'overhead line' and 28 m 'weather proof' line. The learned counsel for petitioners further submits that, there are other so many beneficiaries who are allotted 'excess land' as aforesaid; that no property crossing is involved if the line is drawn through the said path way. The expenditure could be shared by beneficiaries and further that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for making the petitioners to suffer, when there exists a clear pathway. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that the feasibility aspect has been very much considered by the 3rd respondent while passing Ext.P2 order and that the line, if at all to be drawn through the alternate route suggested by petitioners, 150 m overhead line may have to be WPC. No.12323/10 3 drawn along the private pathway and that it is not a public pathway. This will require consent of the property owner. Who is the owner of the concerned property and what are the particulars of the persons, who are enjoying the said path way etc. are not discernible from Ext.P2. Second respondent also has filed a counter affidavit, stating that there is no pubic road and that alleged pathway is not a clear one and that the said respondent is making use of the property of one 'John', to enter his property. The existence of private property is also mooted by the standing counsel as well. But obviously, no such case is seen projected before the 3rd respondent, when the matter was considered leading to issuance of Ext.P2. Since only reason stated in Ext.P2 is that, if the alternate route is to be accepted, line will have to be drawn to an extent of 150 m and nothing else. If there is a path way, which is being made use of by the second respondent and other beneficiaries who have been assigned 'excess land', the line has necessarily to be drawn through the existing path way, if it does not involve any property crossing and there is no necessity to cross the property of the petitioners. The fact that it may involve some additional expenditure can't be the sole yardstick to shift the burden to the shoulders of the petitioners. The additional financial burden, if any, naturally has WPC. No.12323/10 4 to be born by beneficiaries as the case may be. However, it remains a fact that this vital aspect has not been specifically/properly considered or discussed by the 3rd respondent while passing the Ext.P2 order. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court, finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider and pass final orders, after conducting a site inspection and also ascertaining the particulars of the alleged issuance of 'excess land', the pathway leading to the property of the 2nd respondent and other beneficiaries, if any. Final orders as above shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Sou.