IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18090 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KERALA VISWA KARMA SABHA SAKHA NO.653,AYATHIL KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS ACTING PRESIDENT ANIL KUMAR. 2. SRI. KARUTHUR MAHADEVA TEMPLE AAYATHIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SIVANANDAN, BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.C.VIJAYAKUMARI SMT.K.REENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.18090 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Petitioners are the functionaries of the Kerala Viswa Karma Sabha, to which Sri.Karuthur Mahadeva Temple belongs. 2. According to the petitioners, by Exts.P1 and P2, they acquired 47 cents of land where the aforesaid temple is situated. In order to improve the low voltage in the area, the 2nd respondent propose to install a transformer in the temple premises which was objected by the petitioners by Ext.P3. In view of the objections raised, the 2nd respondent moved the Additional District Magistrate, who issued Ext.P4 notice to hear the parties. Thereupon Ext.P5 objection was also filed by petitioner. The objections were considered, WP(c).No.18090/09 2 local inspection was held and thereafter Ext.P6 order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate. It is stated in Ext.P6 that, according to the 2nd respondent, the proposal was to install a transformer in order to remedy the complaint of the local residents about the low voltage in the area and that the transformer is to be placed in purambokku land. It is stated that the claim of the 2nd respondent that the installation is to be in a purambokku area is contradicted by the petitioners. 3. Irrespective of this factual dispute, it is evident from Ext.P6 order that the Additional District Magistrate inspected the land and found the location to be the most unobjectionable one which did not cause any inconvenience to the temple. It is on that basis Ext.P6 has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to impress upon me that the land where the transformer is proposed to be installed is within the temple premises and that the same will cause inconvenience to the worshipers. Although it is a WP(c).No.18090/09 3 matter of dispute, it may be a fact that the location is within the temple premises. But however, having regard to the fact that in Ext.P6, on local inspection, the Additional District Magistrate has found that the location in question is the most unobjectionable one, causing no inconvenience to the temple, I am not persuaded to accept the contention now raised by the petitioners. This is all the more so, since nothing has been placed in this writ petition before me to substantiate that the view taken in Ext.P6 is either perverse or warranting interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.18090/09 4