IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3952 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.SUBRAHMANIAN EMBRANTHIRI, AGED 39 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT MANI MANIDRAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-27. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, VARAPUZHA P.O. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., VADAKUMPURAM, NORTH PARAVUR. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. SUBRAHMANIAN, S/O.LEKSHMANAN, PUTHIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, KADAMKUDY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN, SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3952 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 read with section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 permitting the second respondent to draw the electricity line along the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner and others to provide electricity connection to the residence of the fifth respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that he was not put on notice and his objections were not considered before the impugned order was passed. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he is not residing in the property along the boundary of which the second respondent proposes to draw the electricity line to provide electricity connection to the residence of the 5th respondent, the beneficiary. The petitioner's mother who is residing in the property did not object to the line being drawn along the boundary of her land. Ext.P5 sketch produced along with the writ petition establishes the fact that the line is proposed to be drawn along the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner and others. In such circumstances, as the proposal is to draw electricity line through W.P.(C) No.3952 of 2011 2 the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner's mother and others, I am of the opinion that no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner had been heard, he could not have successfully objected to the line being drawn along the boundary of his lands. I, therefore, find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P6. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.