IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25347 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. BIJU, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS, PARATHARA VEEDU, CHEERANCHIRA P.O., VERUR, CHETTIPUZHA. 2. BENNY JACOB, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA P.O., PUTHUCHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SBU DIVISION, THENGANA, CHANGANASSERY, REP.BY ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION, THANGANA. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM.PIN- 686 001. 3. SUNIL V.C., S/O.RAJAPPAN, KAPPALAMOTTIL VEEDU, CHEERANCHIRA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY- 686 101. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI R3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 25347 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the neighbours of 3rd respondent who applied for electricity connection. It is filed mainly challenging Ext.P11 order. Based on the application for electric connection to the residential building constructed by the 3rd respondent, the first respondent proposed to draw lines over the pathway leading to the property of the 3rd respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the said pathway is a private pathway having a width of 4½ feet and length of 50 metre meant for the exclusive use of the petitioners. The proposal was to draw the lines through the points A,B and D as can be seen from Ext.P9. In fact, lines have already been drawn through the said points and were energized. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were issued with notice by the second respondent before passing Ext.P11 order, they were not afforded with an opportunity of being heard. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P11 is passed by the second respondent WPC.25347/2010 : 2 : in total disregard to principles of natural justice. Evidently, the petitioners and all the other contesting parties were permitted to file statements before passing Ext.P11. However, in view of the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice made by the petitioner, the matter was heard in detail to decide whether on account of the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice any prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 3. As already noticed hereinbefore, the proposal was to draw the lines through the points A, B and D to property of the 3rd respondent for granting electrical connection to her residential building. In fact, the lines have already been drawn and energized. There is nothing on record to show that the pathway alongside the line was drawn is a pathway over which the petitioners alone are having exclusive right. Evidently, it is a pathway leading to the property of the 3rd WPC.25347/2010 : 3 : respondent, as well. The grievance of the petitioner is that the alternative suggestion of the petitioner was not actually taken into consideration and they were not afforded with an opportunity of being heard by the second respondent. Had they been given such an opportunity they could have brought it to the notice of the second respondent regarding the existence of a feasible, alternative route to draw the line to the property of the 3rd respondent, it is further submitted. The alternative suggestion made by the petitioner is evidently, through the route mentioned in Ext.P9(a). According to the petitioners the lines could have been drawn through the property of one Sofy Naushad, for the purpose of granting electrical connection to the residential building of the 3rd respondent. At the same time, the petitioners themselves admit the fact that the said Sofy Nausad is not prepared to give consent for drawing electric lines through her property for the purpose of granting service connection to the residential building of the 3rd respondent. That apart, the said Sofy Noushad is not made a party to this writ petition. The route through which line was already drawn is having the WPC.25347/2010 : 4 : width of 4 feet even according to Ext.P9. Ext.P4 Commission Report would, however, reveal that the said pathway is having a width of more than 5 feet. In this context, it is relevant to note that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit as O.S No.18/2010 before the Munsiff Cout, Changanacherry. The said suit was filed for the purpose of injuncting the respondents from drawing lines through the aforesaid pathway till the second respondent takes a decision on the complaint preferred before the second respondent by the first respondent in terms of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. In the said suit, the petitioner has taken out a Commission. Ext.P4 is the Commission report. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 report reads thus:- “Aj|LpkŸ]W oPÐLU jÒ¡ vu]¨V 168 o}ã¡ j}toOºV. a] vu]pORa NkSvwjnLYU oOf¤ CqOkfa] vaS¨LŸV R\sæOSÒL¥ v}f] BSrWL¤ Aa]pLpOU Cf]jOSwxoOç nLYU oOf¤ SrLcV AvyLj] ¨OÐ vs]pv}Ÿ]¤ R\sæÕ¢ R\Ÿ]pLqORa kOqp]aU vRqpOç vu] nLY¾V v}f] ASµWL¤ Aa]pLp] f]ŸRÕaO¾]p]q]¨OÐO.” The above extracted portion of Ext.P4 would reveal that the said pathway is having sufficient width and the drawing of line alongside the pathway, in fact, over the pathway, would not in any way affect conveyance through the said pathway. Evidently, posts were installed at the points A and B and they WPC.25347/2010 : 5 : are on the extreme side of the aforesaid pathway and Ext.P9 (a) and Ext.R3(a) and R3(b) would reveal that installation of posts at the points A and B would not in any way cause any hindrance to the user of the said pathway. I am of the view that the petitioner had failed to establish the prejudice caused on account of violation of the principles of natural justice even if it is taken that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. As already noticed hereinbefore, in this case, the line was drawn and now energized. The line was drawn over the pathway and the alternative route suggested by the petitioners was only through the property of another person. When that be the position, Ext.P11 cannot be said to be perverse or illegal warranting interference. In the circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge