IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23418 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- USHAKUMARI, W/O.SATHEESH, PUTHEN VEETTIL, EDAPPON P.O., NOORANAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHARUMMOOD. 3. GOPALA PILLAI, PUTHEN VEETTIL, EDAPPON P.O., NOORANAD. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAM ESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.23418 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act and Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is under challenge. In that order, after hearing the petitioner and the beneficiary, the Additional District Magistrate ordered the line be drawn through the residential premises of the petitioner. The contention raised by the petitioner is that if the line is drawn as proposed by the 2nd respondent, that will cut across her properties and it will result in cutting and removal of yielding trees. 2. However, a reading of the order shows that the alignment through which the line is proposed to be drawn is entirely through a pathway and this position is confirmed by Ext.P3 sketch produced by the petitioner WP(c).No.23418/09 2 herself. It is also found in Ext.P4 order that if the line is drawn as above, it will not result in cutting of any tree as apprehended by the petitioner. That apart, the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, though beyond the jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate also been examined. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.23418/09 3