IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30012 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE, DIVINE NAGAR, P.O.MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680316 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR FR.JOHN MANICKATHAN. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MELOOR P.O., CHALAKUDY. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 4. ANTONY, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE, MURINGOOR P.O. 5. SUBRAN, S/O.KALI, VELUTHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR P.O. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & R2 SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON 29/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.30012 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is the Divine Retreat Centre, Muringoor. They filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, by which, the Additional District Magistrate granted permission to the 2nd respondent to draw electricity lines through the petitioner's property for giving electricity supply to respondents 4 and 5. The proposal of the 2nd respondent was to draw 195 meters of overhead line and weather proof lines along the private roads maintained by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent submitted before the Additional District Magistrate that there were no feasible alternate routes since the houses of the beneficiaries were between the Railway line and the Divine Retreat Centre. The petitioner suggested two alternate routes. First one was to take power from the petitioner's premises by putting a separate meter and to reduce the consumption from the total consumption of the petitioner. But the 2nd respondent opposed the same on the ground that the two premises are separate and the rules of the Board did not permit drawing of power from the premises of one consumer to another consumer and that lines have to be separately drawn from the main lines to each w.p.c.30012/09 2 premises. The second alternate route suggested by the petitioner was to draw line through the western boundary of the petitioner's property using underground cables. According to the 2nd respondent, this is also against the norms prescribed by the Board. The beneficiaries complained that they are living without electricity for the past twenty years. The petitioner put forward another suggestion also to draw line through the puramboke land between the railway line and the property of the petitioner. But, on survey by the Taluk Surveyor, it was found that the same is railway puramboke and permission for drawing of line through the same, although requested for, was not granted by the Railways. On inspection of the site by the Additional District Magistrate, he found that the proposal of the 2nd respondent was to draw line through the private roads maintained within the property of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the same on the ground that it may cause danger and it would obstruct their future expansion. But the Additional District Magistrate felt that there cannot be any serious inconvenience if the line is drawn through the private roads of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, suggested another alternate route through their compound at the southern side adjacent to their compound wall near the Muringoor Railway Station, by using insulated cables. The petitioner agreed to give the cost of the cables for the same. Therefore, the Additional District Magistrate directed the 2nd w.p.c.30012/09 3 respondent to examine the feasibility of the said proposal and to report with an estimate. Again the matter was heard on 25.9.2009, on which, date the 2nd respondent submitted that, for drawing line as suggested by the petitioner, 265 meters' cables, special type poles and cradling facilities would be required, for which the estimate cost was Rs.1,27,500/-. The 2nd respondent submitted that the estimate amount as per the original proposal was Rs.33,153/- which would be borne by the KSEB and the balance had to be borne by the petitioner. Considering these two proposals, the Additional District Magistrate gave two alternatives to the petitioner. One is to pay the difference between the rates of Rs.1,27.500/- and Rs.33,153/- for drawing the line using cables, special type of poles and cradling facilities, or to draw line through the private road of the petitioner as originally proposed. Ext.P5 is that order. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be required to pay the expenses for drawing the lines to the beneficiaries. 3. After hearing, I am at a loss to understand how the petitioner could validly oppose the proposal of the 2nd respondent. Admittedly the proposal is to draw line through the private roads maintained by the petitioner. By drawing the line along the private roads, the petitioner would not in any way be inconvenienced. The objection raised by the petitioner to the same is totally without any w.p.c.30012/09 4 merits whatsoever. In fact, in Kerala, through several roads maintained in many rubber estates, electricity line is drawn for giving electricity connection to people other than the estate owners. If the petitioner wants to have the line drawn as proposed by him, he will certainly have to bear the additional expenses which offer was also given to the petitioner. There is no compulsion on the petitioner to pay the charges. If the petitioner wants the 2nd respondent to avoid the most feasible route to draw line as proposed by them, which would cost more expense to the Electricity Board, he has to bear the additional costs. That is a concession offered to the petitioner and not a compulsion. The petitioner is perfectly free to choose between the two alternatives. But if the petitioner is not prepared to pay the additional expenses, the Board is certainly entitled to draw the lines as originally proposed as permitted by the Additional District Magistrate. It is settled law that this Court can interfere with the order of the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, only if the findings of the District Magistrate are in any way perverse or actuated by malafides [see the Division Bench decision of this Court in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate, 1997 (2) KLT 979]. Here the petitioner has no case that the order of the Additional District Magistrate or the action of the 2nd respondent is in any way actuated by malafides. I do not also find any perversity whatsoever in w.p.c.30012/09 5 the Additional District Magistrate allowing the 2nd respondent to draw lines through the private roads maintained by the petitioner, which would in no way inconvenience the petitioner and would be the most feasible route causing least damages. The petitioner was also given an option to pay additional expenses required for drawing lines as proposed by the petitioner, which would cost much more than the original proposal. Simply because such a concession was offered to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot challenge the order on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to bear the charges for drawing electric lines to somebody else. The order only held that if the petitioner is not inclined to accept the concession so offered, line would be drawn through the proposed route, which is the most feasible route causing the least damage, which in fact would not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner since the line is to be drawn only along the roads maintained by the petitioner. I am of opinion that Ext.P5 order is perfectly in accordance with the Indian Telegraph Act and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.30012/09 6