IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22483 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DROUPATHI, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. ATHUTHAN, POONGATTU, ANJOOR DESOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADD. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB KUNNAMKULAM, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. BALAMANIAMMA, D/O. CHEEREDATHU LAKSHMIAMMA, ANJOOR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.RAJIT FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22483 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of a property across which the 2nd respondent intends to draw electric line for giving electricity connection to the 3rd respondent. He is aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act in that regard. According to the petitioner, the route authorised by the 1st respondent is through a 2.5 feet private pathway belonging to the petitioner over which the 3rd respondent also has a right of way and if for drawing the electric line, posts are put in the pathway, that would seriously affect the use of the pathway insofar as the usable width of the pathway would be considerably reduced. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has proposed another route through the property of the petitioner herself for which the petitioner does not have any objection. The petitioner submits that in the proceedings before the 1st respondent, the petitioner had pointed out the alternate route as also another route, both of which have been marked in Ext. P7 sketch produced by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner complains that the feasibility of those alternate routes was not properly evaluated by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has, without applying its mind, accepted the route proposed by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, insofar as a more feasible and less inconvenient route is available, which would not hamper the use of the narrow pathway leading to the petitioner's as well as the 3rd respondent's properties the same should have been accepted by the 1st respondent, instead of blindly approving the route suggested by the 2nd respondent. 2. I have heard the parties. 3. It is true that in a 2.5 ft. pathway, which has a right angled bend as well, electric posts are put, that would naturally result in W.P.C. No. 22483/09. -: 2 :- reduction of the usable width of the pathway considerably. Therefore, if possible, such a course should be avoided. That being so, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the feasibility of the other two routes suggested by the petitioner as delineated in Ext. P7 sketch produced by the petitioner. But, I find that in both those routes, the line has to cross properties of another person. Therefore, without considering their contentions in the matter, the alternate rouges suggested by the petitioner cannot be approved. Hence, I am of opinion that the 1st respondent should consider the feasibility of the other two alternate routes after hearing the persons who also may be affected by drawing lines through those routes. In the above circumstances, Ext. P6 order of the 1st respondent is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter on the question of feasibility of the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner after issuing notice to the other persons who may be affected and considering the contentions of all concerned. I make it clear that if the 1st respondent is satisfied that one of the routes can be adopted, then he shall specifically state that such drawing of electric line should only be through the boundaries of the properties concerned even if some extra expenses have to be incurred for the same. I further make it clear that it would be open to the 1st respondent to consider a third alternate route suggested by the 2nd respondent, if the same is more feasible than the other two. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.