IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 7516 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUSAN GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE THOMAS @ ANIYAN, KURUMALACHELLIYIL, EDAYARANMULA, ARANMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ARANMULA. 3. SMT.KAMALAMMA, AYIRUKKUZHIYIL, ARANMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU FOR R3 MR.I.V.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSE BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7516/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DATED 22/02/2007. P2 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14/02/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 BY THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/02/2008 OF R1. P4 : COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a) : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7516 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, allowing a proposal to draw electric line to the premises of the 3rd respondent. 2. It is stated that the 3rd respondent applied for power connection to her residential house. However, that was objected by the petitioner, and as a result of which, the 2nd respondent moved the 1st respondent, invoking his power under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Enquiry was conducted and by Ext.P3, the line was allowed to be drawn through the alignment proposed. Contending that if the line is drawn as proposed that will be across the petitioner's property causing extensive damages, this writ petition is filed. 3. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, a sketch has been produced. In the sketch, the houses of the petitioner, 3rd respondent and her mother in law, WP(C) No.7516/2008 2- Smt.Ponnamma, are indicated. It is pointed out that close to the house of Smt.Ponnamma, there is an electric post, and if the post is shifted, it will be possible to draw the line through a pathway leading to the house of the 3rd respondent, avoiding any damage to the petitioner's property. Certainly this suggestion should have been considered by the authorities, and such a suggestion is not seen considered by the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P3 order. 4. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- That the 2nd respondent shall consider the feasibility of drawing the line, avoiding the petitioner's property, by shifting the post, which is laid close to the house of Smt.Ponnamma, mother in law of the 3rd respondent. If such an alternate alignment or any other alternate alignment is available, the feasibility of such proposal will be considered by the 2nd respondent, and if it is possible, the line shall be drawn avoiding the petitioner's property. It is directed that, on the other hand, on such examination it is found that such alternate proposals are not feasible, it will be open to the 2nd respondent to WP(C) No.7516/2008 3- draw the line as indicated in Ext.P3 order. 5. Needless to say that shifting of the post, shall be at the expense of the beneficiary. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall complete the aforesaid process as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg