IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12346 of 2009(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THANKAM, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. SREEDHARAN, KANJIRAKKADU HOUSE, VALAMPOOR PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SHAJI THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. M.P.VARGHESE, MADATHUMPADI VEEDU, VALAMPOOR, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R4 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. R5 BY ADV. MR.PAUL K.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.12346/2009 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 19/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2/03/2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTIMATTAM DIVISION TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD.NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12346 OF 2009 (K) ===================== Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. The petitioner only suggests that if the line is drawn through the boundary of her property, damages to the property being cut into two pieces could be avoided. Therefore, the only request made is that the respondents be directed to consider the feasibility of drawing the line through the boundary of her property. 3. Having gone through Ext.P2 and also on hearing the counsel for the beneficiary, I do not think that if the feasibility of avoiding an alignment through the middle of the petitioners property is explored that will be of any prejudice to the respondents and at the same time, it will be avoiding an injury to the petitioner also. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider whether it is possible to draw the line WPC 12346/09 :2 : to the premises of the 5th respondent through the boundary of the petitioner's property and if such an alignment is feasible, to consider drawing the line through the said alignment. If it is not technically feasible, then it will be open to the respondents to draw the line through the alignment permitted in Ext.P2. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp