IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 30453 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SABU, S/O.VIJAYAMMA, SABU MANDIRAM, THEKKE MURI, KIZHAKKEKALLADA P.O., KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VENOY VARGHESE KALLUMMOOTTIL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM - 691001 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,(K.S.E.B) ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM -691001 4. T.KUTTY, VALUTHUNDUIL VEEDU, THEKKEMURI, KIZHAKKEKALLADA, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 3 SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB FOR R1 & 3 SR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI. CYRIAC KURIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30453 of 2010(F) APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROOT ABH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED ROUTE. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. Kp/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30453 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order dated 13.9.2010 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The fourth respondent herein applied for electricity connection to his residence. The Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for short) thereupon took steps to draw the line from an existing post situate on the north western boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner by drawing the line through his property. The petitioner objected to the said proposal. The Assistant Executive Engineer thereupon moved the Additional District Magistrate for permission to draw the line. The petitioner contended that if the line is drawn as suggested by the Board, it will have to be drawn over a well and will also necessitate the cutting and removal of a coconut palm. The petitioner also contended that the line can be drawn through the pathway leading to the residence of the WPC No.30453/2010 2 beneficiary. The Assistant Executive Engineer stated before the Additional District Magistrate that the most feasible route is the route proposed by the Board and that if the line is drawn along the northern boundary of the petitioner’s land, no inconvenience will be caused to the petitioner. The Additional District Magistrate overruled the contention raised by the petitioner and directed the line to be drawn along the route “ABH” namely a little to the south of the northern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner but away from the well situated in the north eastern corner of the petitioner’s property. Hence this writ petition. 3. I heard Sri.Vinoy Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, learned standing appearing for the Board and Sri.Cyriac Kurian, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. Though the fourth respondent beneficiary has been served, he has not so far chosen to enter appearance. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to Ext.R1 (a) sketch produced by the first respondent along with the WPC No.30453/2010 3 counter affidavit dated 5.8.2011 that the line can be drawn along the pathway lying to the west through which the beneficiary has access to his residence. The learned counsel contended that even assuming that the pathway is a narrow pathway having a width of only four feet, a post could be erected in the lands belonging to the beneficiary, an overhead line can be drawn up to that point and a weather proof line can be drawn from that post through the property of the beneficiary himself and that it is not at all necessary to draw the line through the property of the petitioner. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits that the line 'AB' has already been drawn pursuant to the order passed by the District Magistrate but it has not so far been energised and that the Board has no objection to the post being shifted to the north eastern corner of the petitioner's property in such a manner that the line is drawn from the post 'A' along the northern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not seriously opposed the said submission. WPC No.30453/2010 4 In such circumstances, even while upholding Ext.P1 order, I direct the Board and its officers to ensure that the line is drawn from the post erected at point 'A' along the northern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner by erecting a post on the north eastern corner of the land belonging to the petitioner and from there by drawing a weather proof line to the residence of the beneficiary. If a post has already been erected at point 'B', it shall be moved towards the north eastern corner of the petitioner's property. The expenses in that regard shall be realised from the beneficiary. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps