IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3422 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MADHAVAN ADIYODI, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN KIDAVU, THOTTAKANDY HOUSE, KARAYAD POST,MEPPAYUR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE,COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MEPPADY DIVISION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MEPPADY DIVISION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. REENA SREEDHARAN, W/O.SREEDHARAN, THURASSERY, KARAYAD POST, MEPPAYUR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 524. 5. KARUNAKARAZN, THURASSERY, KARAYAD POST, MEPPAYUR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 524. 6. SANKARAN, THURASSERY KUZHIYIL, "SHALABAM", NADUVATHOOR,NELLIANIKADAVU, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 330. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2,3 SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR FOR R4 SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN FOR R4 SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON FOR R4 SRI.S.MOHANDAS FOR R4 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2,3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent/ADM directing the respondent Board to draw the line through the property of the petitioner, so as to provide power supply to the beneficiary, i.e., 4th respondent, without properly considering the objections raised by the petitioner and also without considering the scope and feasibility of the alternate route available and pointed out by the petitioner; that too, without conducting any site inspection. 2. The above Writ Petition was filed on 05.02.2010, which came up for admission before this Court on the next day, when 'status quo' was ordered to be maintained. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, eventhough the matter was communicated by the learned counsel and also as communicated by the learned standing counsel through telephone, officers of the Board did not pay any heed to the same and the line was drawn, providing connection to the 4th respondent, which made the petitioner to file I.A.1635/2010 to amend the Writ Petition, which was allowed on 04.02.2010. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, right from the beginning, the ADM as well as the officers of the Board were taking a 2 WP(C) No. 3422/2010 casual attitude to the grievance projected by the petitioner and that the proceedings have been finalised even without conducting any proper spot inspection. Referring to Ext.P3 notice issued by the ADM, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was nowhere in the scene earlier and the line was sought to be drawn through the property of 'Karunakaran' and 'Sankaran' and it was in connection with this, that the hearing was held on 29.07.2009 as stated in Ext.P3. But subsequently, at the instance of the persons named therein, i.e., respondents 5 and 6, the line was caused to be drawn through the property of the petitioner and accordingly, Ext.P1 notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear for a hearing on 21.10.2009. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections, simultaneously producing Ext.P5 sketch, showing the alternate route through which the line could be drawn. Without any regard to the above proceedings, the ADM finalised the matter, issuing Ext.P6 order on 06.01.2010; which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit producing a sketch, showing the electric line and the routes prepared by the 2nd respondent, as Ext.R2 (a). Referring to the said sketch, it is contended in the counter affidavit that the order passed by the ADM is perfectly within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstance. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned 3 WP(C) No. 3422/2010 counsel for the 4th respondent, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents and also the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent at length. Despite the service of notice by special messenger, there is no appearance for the respondents 5 and 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the contents of Ext.P6, that the inspection stated as conducted by the 1st respondent on 25.12.2009 itself is wrong, as it was a 'Christmas Day' and a holiday. No notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner as to the inspection on 22.12.2009 and the proceedings were finalised without any regard to the actual facts and figures. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents submits that, the Board has proposed two routes as given in Ext.R2 (a) sketch. The first proposal is to draw the line from the existing line in the property belonging to Mr.Karunakaran and it is given as 'UVD' in the sketch and consists of 16 meters of 'overhead line' and 25 meters of 'weather proof' wire, to reach the house of the 4th respondent/beneficiary at the point D. The route passing through the property of the petitioner and Sankaran is given as 'BCD', which consists of 35 meters of 'weather proof' wire, with a supporting post. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the averment in the counter affidavit of the respondents 2 and 3 that, if the line is to be drawn in the 'UVD' route, from the existing post in the property of Karunakaran, it 4 WP(C) No. 3422/2010 was also cross through the property of somebody else is not correct, as evident from the sketch produced by the Board itself. The learned counsel also made reference to yet another route, as 'KLMNOPQD' which passes only through a 'pathway', without any property causing. However, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that, this route is not feasible as more number of posts, with 160 meters of overhead line and 21 meters of weather proof wire are necessary to have it implemented. 7. Going by the rival pleadings and the materials on record, it remains a fact, that the line now drawn through the route 'BCD' is crossing through the middle of the property of the petitioner and also a portion of the property of Sankaran, so as to reach the building of the 4th respondent; whereas, if the line is to be drawn in the 'UVD' route as originally proposed by the Board; no further crossing of any property is involved, as it could be drawn from the existing post situated in the property of Karunakaran. As mentioned hereinbefore, despite the service of notice, the party respondent 5 and 6 have not chosen to appear before this Court, nor have they filed any counter affidavit, particularly as to the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition as to the original route proposed by the Board and the feasibility. Similarly, the specific averments with regard to the inspection and the finalisation of the proceedings without proper notice to the petitioner and the course of events leading to the steps drawing the line 5 WP(C) No. 3422/2010 after filing the Writ Petition and the interim order have not been chosen to be rebutted by the party respondents. Officers of the Board, respondents 2 and 3 have however, stated in the counter affidavit that the line was actually drawn at 1 p.m. on 03.02.2010 and before passing the interim order of 'status quo' passed by this Court and that they have never disobeyed the directions given by this Court. The fact remains that, there is absolutely no acceptable explanation as to why the route 'UVD' as originally proposed by the Board was insisted to be changed by adopting the route 'BCD' involving more property crossing and additional installation of supporting posts. Since the 5th respondent has not chosen to contest the matter; it can only be presumed that the said respondent does not have any objection at all in granting relief as sought for by the petitioner, i.e., to provide the necessary connection as per the original route proposed by the KSEB vide 'UVD', from the existing post situated in the property of the 5th respondent, directly to the property of the 4th respondent at the point D; which appears to be more feasible and less expensive as originally proposed by the Board. 8. In the above circumstance, Ext. P6 is set aside. This Court declares that the electricity connection to the 4th respondent be given in the route shown in 'UVD' in Ext.R2(a) sketch and the existing line drawn in the route 'BCD', crossing the property of the petitioner and the 6th respondent 6 WP(C) No. 3422/2010 be dismantled. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, to prove the bonafides of the petitioner, the petitioner is ready and willing to meet the necessary expenses in this regard, as there is absolutely no intention to cause any loss or hardship to the 4th respondent/ beneficiary. The 2nd and 3rd respondents shall issue necessary intimation to the petitioner as to the expenses to shift the line from the 'BCD' route and to have it reinstalled in the route 'UVD' within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; on which event, the entire expenses shall be satisfied by the petitioner within one week thereafter. On satisfying the requirement as above, the line in the route 'UVD' shall be implemented by the Board, giving electricity supply to the 4th respondent/beneficiary within two weeks thereafter. Till the supply is effected in the alternate route now declared by this Court, the existing connection given to 4th respondent shall not be interfered. The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc