IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 2975 of 2007(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. VASU, S/O. KOCHAPPA, RESIDING AT NELLICKAL HOUSE, PUTHIYANIKATHIL, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, SOUTH PARUR, KANAYANNOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUNJI, RESIDING AT NELLICKAL HOUSE, PUTHIYANIKATHIL, MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, SOUTH PARUR, KANAYANNOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THRIPUNITHURA. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, UDAYAMPEROOR. 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 5. K.P. SHAJI, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH PARUR, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R6 VIJAYAN, NELLICKAL HOUSE SOUTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM ADDL.R7 ARAVINDAKSHAN, NELLICKAL HOUSE SOUTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM ADDL.R8 VELAYUDHAN, THATTANPARAMBIL, SOUTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM (ADDL.R6 TO R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.4655/07 DT 26.3.07) ADDL.R9 C.R.SIVANANDAN, S/ORAGHAVAN, NELLICKAL HOUSE SOUTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ADDL.R10 V.M.JOHN, S/O.MATHAI, NELLICKAL HOUSE SOUTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (ADDL.R9 & R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.5174/07 DT 9.4.07) BY ADV. SMT.LISY T.SKARIA SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM FOR ADDL.R6 SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW FOR ADDL.R9 TO 10 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 WRITTEN COMPLAINT DT 29.12.05 TO R2. P2 REPORT BY R3. P3 ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY R3. P4 ORDER DT 9.1.07 BY R4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: R2(A) SKETCH SHOWING THE LINE ROUTES. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2975 OF 2007 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners call in question Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate under section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. The case in brief is as follows. A petition was filed for grant of permission to draw electricity connection to the property of the 5th respondent. There are two routes proposed by the electricity authority. Preferring one of the routes to the other, the Additional District Magistrate has granted permission to draw the electric line from the post situated in the property of the 2nd petitioner. The case of the petitioners is that the said order is illegal and unsustainable. According to the petitioners, the line ABCD running through the properties of additional respondents 6 to 8 is more feasible. Additional respondents 9 and 10 are persons who support the order passed by the Magistrate. According to them, if the line is drawn through A1B1C1D1, WPC.2975/07 : 2 : they will also be provided connection. 2. I heard both parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated as follows. “ 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order by which the ADM had directed to KSEB to draw electric line to the house of the 5th respondent through the property of the petitioner. The disputes relating to the drawal of electric line to the house of 5th respondent was referred to the ADM by the Board and the KSEB furnished a sketch showing the line routes, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R2 (a). In Ext.R2(a) the KSEB submitted that there is an existing post at the point A from which the line can be easily drawn to the house of 5th respondent (E) through the route ABCDE and it is the most feasible one. The above line was proposed through the exact boundaries of the following persons - (1) Velayudhan, Thattan Parambil, South Paravoor, (2) Vijayan, Nellickal, South Paravoor, (3) Aravindan, Nellickal, South Paravoor. There was no need to cut and remove any trees in the above line route. The total length of the above line route was 110 meters of OH line and 20 meters weather proof wire. WPC.2975/07 : 3 : 3. However the ADM approved another route marked as A1B1C1D1 shown in the sketch. There is an existing post A1 in the property of the 2nd petitioner. The property of 2nd petitioner is having a total area of only 4 cents and there are 5 numbers of weather proof connection already granted to five different consumers from this particular post and if the order issued by the ADM is also implemented by drawing another OH line from the said post will be like a spider network of electric line in this 4 cents of land. Moreover the said route will pass over the roof of the 2nd petitioner and it will not get clearance from a big tree owned by the 1st petitioner. In the above circumstances, the route approved by ADM in Ext.P4 is not feasible.” 3. The stand is that drawing of the line from the post standing in the property of the 1st petitioner is not feasible. The 1st petitioner has only 4 cents and already 5 lines have drawn from the said post. It is also stated that if the alternate route is taken, it will be along the boundary of the properties of the persons concerned. I feel that these are matters to be considered by the ADM. Ext.P4 is quashed so that the matter is reconsidered. It is made clear that the entire matter is left WPC.2975/07 : 4 : open to be considered by the ADM. The parties will appear before the ADM on 25.6.2008 at 11 a.m. It is also open to respondents 9 and 10 to be present before the Magistrate and they may be heard. Accordingly, the 4th respondent will proceed to take up the matter on 25.6.2008, hear the petitioners and the respondents and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from 25.6.2008. The writ petition is allowed as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks