IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23677 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. SYED MOHAMMED THEKKEMAVUMKAMNNIL HOUSE KATTOOR MURI, NARANGANAM NORTH.P.O. CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRAT, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOZENCHERRY. 3. HANEEFA, AGED 60 YEARS, KOLLAKADVUPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KATTOOR MURI, NARANGANAM NORTH.P.O., CHERUKOLE VILLAGE RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 4. SALEENA, W/O. HANEEFA, AGED 60 YEARS, KOLLAKADVUPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE KATTOOR MURI, NARANGANAM NORTH P.O., CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23677 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 permitting that electricity line be drawn through the property mentioned therein. 2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent did not consider the alternate alignments suggested by the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in V.V.Manikkam v. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B (2008(1) KLT 647), the view taken by the learned Judge supports the proposition that the District Magistrate is bound to consider the alternate alignments proposed. 3. However, on a reading of the judgment, it is seen that attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the Full Bench judgment in Mammoo v. State of Kerala (1979 KLT 801) and the judgment in Kunjulakshmi v. District Magistrate(1986 WPC 23677/09 :2 : KLT 1320) where it has been settled that choice of alignment is beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 16(1) and that what the District Magistrate is concerned is only regarding the grant of permission for drawing the line through the alignment proposed by the Board. If that be the settled position, I cannot find fault with the Additional District Magistrate in not considering the alternate alignments suggested by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp