IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27061 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEENAKSHI,CHALIL PELERI,KUTTOOR, KUTTOOR.PO,KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP; BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. CHERIYAKUTTY, KANJIRANGADAN VEEDU, KUTTOOR.PO,KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. PARVATHI,W/O.NARAYANAN,KOTTOOR HOUSE, KUTTOOR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. AJITHA,W/O.RAJAN,KOTTOOR HOUSE, KUTTOOR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. PRASEETHA,W/O.SANTHOSH ALOLATHU POYIL HOUSE,KUTTOOR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. M.RAJASHEKHARAN NAIR,MANIMALAKAROTHU, NELLIYAADU,KUTTOOR.PO,KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R6 SRI.M.M.ANTO FOR R 6 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 27061 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P2 order of the 2nd respondent, whereby the 2nd respondent has given permission to the 3rd respondent to draw electric lines over the petitioner's property for the purpose of drawing electric lines to the house of the 8th respondent. The simple contention of the petitioner is that there is a pathway leading to the 8th respondent's house through which lines can be drawn without disturbing the property of any other person. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board also. 3. The existence of the pathway leading to the 8th respondent's house is not disputed. It is also not disputed that if the line is drawn through that pathway, it will not cross anybody else's property. The only objection raised by the standing counsel for the Electricity Board is that if line is drawn through the narrow pathway, which is only 3 feet wide, sufficient clearance cannot be given for the electric line from the house of the 6th respondent. I am not satisfied that, that contention is correct. According to the Building Rules, the house has to be constructed by the 6th respondent at least 6 meters away from the boundary of her property. Even otherwise, admittedly, the pathway is 3 feet wide. If the post is put on the other side of the pathway, then there cannot be any difficulty in maintaining sufficient clearance from the 6th respondent's house. That being so, I do not find any merit in the only objection raised by the 3rd respondent for drawing line through the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the 3rd respondent can draw electric line through the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, which is marked as ABCD in Ext. P1 rough sketch, which is not disputed by the standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity W.P.C. No. 27061/09 -: 2 :- Board. Accordingly, Ext. P2 is quashed. There would be a direction to the 3rd respondent to draw the electric line through the pathway referred to above. Of course, it would be open to the 3rd respondent to put another post opposite to the post shown as B in the road instead of drawing the line from the post at point A. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.