IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19775 of 2007(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.ABRAHAM RESIDING AT BEDHANI HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY NORTH, KAYAMKULAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, KAYAMKULAM. 3. REVI, RESIDING AT KODITHARAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY NORTH, KAYAMKULAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-2 SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 19775 OF 2007 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order granting permission to draw line for giving connection to the 3rd respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the Board, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 commission report would show that the proposed line is unsuitable. The extent of land is 13 cents and alternate routes are there, it is contended. 3. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The first alternate route has to pass over the properties of four persons which are shown as No.4, 5, 6 and 7. Its length would be 86 meters of Over Head line and 17 meters of Weather Proof line. As far as the second alternate route is concerned, the properties of two persons will have to be crossed, namely 9 and 10 in Ext.R2(a). The length will be 128 meters of over head line WPC.19775/07 : 2 : and for this posts will have to be made. As far as the proposed line ABC is concerned, the property crossing will be limited to one only, namely the petitioner. 4. I put a query to the counsel whether the line can be drawn in such a manner that it passes along the boundary of the property of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel would submit that if two posts are erected, the line can be drawn along the boundary of the property of the petitioner to the extent possible. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is agreeable to bear the additional expenses for putting of two posts. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 is modified to the extent only that the line is permitted to be drawn through the property of the petitioner but subject to the modification that it will be drawn in such a manner that it progresses along the boundaries of the property of the petitioner as far as possible and with the aid of two additional posts the expense of which would be met by the 3rd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks