IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13213 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SUSAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.GEE VARGHESE, RESIDING AT THADATHIL POIYKAYIL (T.P.HOUSE), KULATHUPUZHA PANCHAYAT, THINKALKARIKKAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 4. SURENDRAN, POIYKAVIL VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 5. MANI, POIYKAVIL VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 6. SUDHARMANI, ASWATHY BHAVANAM, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 7. KRISHNAN, POIYKAVIL VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 8. REGHUPATHY, POIYKAVIL VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. WPC NO.13213/09 -2- 9. MADHAVAN, POIYKAVIL VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 10. SASIDHARAN, POIYKAVIL VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. 11. SATHYAN, POIYKAVIL VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. ADDL.R12. GIRIJA VIJAYAN, W/O VIJAYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, AMBADI, KUMARAM KARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, THINKALKARIKKAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DT. (ADDL.R12 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.5/6/09 IN IA 6482/09) ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 3 SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R5 SRI. K.SIJU FOR R4, R5 AND ADDL.R12 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13213/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSUMER CARD ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND BEARING NUMBER 5714548 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 10.2.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M4-53039/07/K.DIS DT 29.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KULATHUPUZHA DB/PROPXING/KPZA/04-05 DT 1.10.2004 ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS REFERRED THERETO INCLUDING A SKETCH. EXT.P5: A TREU COPY OF THE LETTER DT 27.5.09 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED THERETO. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP (ROUGH SKETCH) PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 13213 OF 2009 (V) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. It is stated that some time in 2004, respondents 4 to 6 applied for supply of electricity to their residential premises and that was objected by several persons including the deceased father of respondents 7 and 8. While the matter stood as above, on an application made by the petitioner's husband, supply was made to their premises w.e.f. 15/3/06 after laying necessary posts also. Subsequent to it, in view of the fact that the post has been laid for supplying energy to the petitioner's husband, the residential premises of the respondents 4 to 6, was found to be in closer proximity to the said post and therefore it had become more convincing to draw the line from the post laid for the purpose of supplying energy to the petitioner's husband. 3. When this proposal was objected, Ext.P5 application was made by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent requesting WPC 13213/09 :2 : for removal of the obstruction to draw line through the post mentioned above. On that application, notice was issued to the petitioner and Ext.P2 objection was filed. Finally Ext.P3 order was passed by the ADM permitting drawal of the line as proposed and removing the obstruction offered by the petitioner's husband. 4. The contention raised before me is that in Ext.P3 itself, reference has been made to an application made by the 3rd respondent, much prior to 2006 when supply of energy was made to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the original alignment proposed when application was made on the earlier occasion was through a pathway and that while passing Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent did not consider the proposal as originally made by the KSEB. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is contradicted by the standing counsel appearing for the Board contending that once supply was made to the petitioner's husband's premises, in view of the availability of a post laid for that purpose, it has become more feasible to draw line from the said post and supply energy to respondents 4 to 6. It is stated that accordingly they made a fresh proposal on the basis of which the impugned order is passed. WPC 13213/09 :3 : 5. From the facts as contended by the counsel for the petitioner and also the party respondents, it is evident that initially the proposal made by the Board was to supply electricity to the premises of respondents 4 to 6 was from an alignment which is different from what is mentioned in Ext.P3. However, change in the alignment was made and a fresh proposal was made by the officers of the Board, following subsequent developments, when a post was laid for supplying energy to the premises of the petitioner's husband. It was on that proposal that notice was ordered to the petitioner's husband and Ext.P3 order was passed. 6. Evidently, therefore, there was only one proposal and it is that proposal which is now allowed. According to the Board, it is more feasible to draw line from the alignment mentioned in Ext.P3. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in upsetting the order for the reason that an earlier proposal, which has since been withdrawn, was not considered at the time when Ext.P3 order was passed. I do not think the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp