IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16222 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.V.PAREED, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SAIDUMUHAMMED, "ERACHAM VEETIL", VENMANAD, P.O.PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN 680001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B. MUTHUVARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680507. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., PAVARATTY SECTION, PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680507. 4. ABDUL AZEEZ, NALAKATHU KUZHIYIL HOUSE, MARUTHAYOOR P.O., PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680507. 5. RAVI, KUNTHARA HOUSE, MARUTHAYOOR P.O., PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680507. 6. SHAHUL HAMEED, "ERACHAM VEETIL", VENMANAD, P.O.PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680507. 7. RABIYA, "ERACHAM VEETIL", VENMANAD, P.O.PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680507. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.16222 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE AREA EVIDENCING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY THE PROPOSAL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PROPOSAL MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DT. 31.1.2011 IN I.A.NO.727 OF 2011 IN O.S.N.151 OF 2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.C4/SR/BT/11/2011 K.Dis. dt. 9.6.2011 PLAN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur on 9.6.2011 under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 permitting the second respondent to draw electricity line across the pathway leading to the house of the petitioner for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residences of respondents 4 and 5 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 and other persons residing in the locality make use of and enjoy a common pathway, approximately 12 feet wide. When respondents 4 and 5 applied for electricity connection and the officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board took steps to provide electricity connection by erecting posts on the pathway, objections were raised by the petitioner's wife by filing a suit, O.S.No. 151 of 2011 in the Court of Munsiff of Chavakkad. The second respondent thereupon moved the Additional District Magistrate by filing a petition under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The petitioner, his brother Shahul Hameed and petitioner's daughter Smt.Rabiya were arrayed as respondents in the petition. Notice was issued to them and they were heard on 8.6.2011. Though the petitioner's brother and daughter did W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2011 2 not appear, the petitioner was represented by counsel. The proposal suggested by the Assistant Executive Engineer was to shift the post already standing in the property of the petitioner's daughter (7th respondent) to the side of the pathway, erect another post on the boundary of the pathway adjacent to the properties of respondents 4 and 5, draw an overhead line for a length of 20 meters and give electricity connection to the residences of respondents 4 and 5 by drawing 5 meters and 30 meters weather proof wire. The alternate proposal suggested by the petitioner's counsel was to draw the line from another alignment involving the drawing of an overhead line for a length 91 meters and the erection of four posts. Taking into account the expenditure involved and feasibility, the Additional District Magistrate permitted the second respondent to draw the line along the route suggested by the Board. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the proposal to lay an underground cable across the pathway to the residences of respondents 4 and 5 was not at all considered by the Additional District Magistrate or mooted by the Board. It is stated that through an underground cable, electricity connection has been provided to the residences of Hamsa, Aamina Kutty and the petitioner himself and therefore there is no reason why such a course of action W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2011 3 should not be adopted in the case of respondents 4 and 5. 4. I heard Sri.Rajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. A reading of Ext.P3 order indicates that the petitioner was represented by counsel who appeared before the Additional District Magistrate on 8.6.2011. The order does not indicate that the case now put forward by the petitioner that electricity connection can be given by laying underground cable was raised before the Additional District Magistrate. That apart, there is no material before this Court to decide whether the laying of an underground cable would involve additional expenditure or would cast heavy financial burden on the beneficiaries. All that is required to be done in the instant case is to shift the electricity post standing in the property of the petitioner's daughter (7th respondent) to the side of the pathway and erect another post on the boundary of the pathway adjacent to the properties of respondents 4 and 5, draw an overhead line for a length of 20 meters and thereafter provide electricity connection to the residences of respondents 4 and 5 by drawing 5 meters and 30 meters weather proof wire. Apart from vaguely stating that if the line is drawn as suggested by the Board, it would cause inconvenience to W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2011 4 the petitioner, no concrete material is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. Such being the situation, I am not satisfied that the Additional District Magistrate has acted arbitrary or that the decision taken by him is in any way perverse. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.