IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16707 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, POTTANTAYYATHI, ARINALLOOR P.O., THEVELAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 4. SATHI, KOCHUVEETTIL KIZHAKKETHIL, ARINALLOOR P.O., THEVELAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 5. VIMALA, KOCHUVEETTIL KIZHAKKETHIL, ARINALLOOR P.O., THEVELAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16707 OF 2009 (G) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the 3rd respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act on an application made by the 2nd respondent. 2. It is stated that when the respondents 4 and 5 applied for supply of electricity to their premises, that was objected by the petitioner and another person. Thereupon the 2nd respondent moved the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent conducted an inspection of the premises and was satisfied that the only feasible alignment was through the portion marked as PQRS in the sketch submitted by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, 3rd respondent passed Ext.P2 order and it is this order which is under challenge. 3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that an alternate route was suggested by him and that the said suggestion ought to have been considered and accepted. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that on inspection of the site, the 3rd respondent was satisfied that what is allowed was the only WPC 16707/09 :2 : feasible alignment available. Secondly even going by Ext.P3 sketch produced by the petitioner, it can be seen that the line is passing through the boundary of his property and therefore damages, if at all, will be only minimal. On the other hand, if alternate route suggested by the petitioner is to be accepted, that line will cut across the property of a third party and the damage will be more. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I do not find any perversity in Ext.P2 warranting interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp