IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24285 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ALIAS, ARESSERIL, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, ARTHUNKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SRI.VASTHYAN BOUSEENJU, KAKKARIYIL, ARTHUNKAL P.O., CHERTHALA. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24285 OF 2009 (E) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Though the challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the 2nd respondent allowing the 1st respondent to draw line as mentioned therein for supply of electrical energy to the premises of the 3rd respondent, when the matter came up for orders, all that the petitioner seeks is a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the feasibility of drawing the line through the eastern boundary of his property and as mentioned in Ext.P1 sketch, produced in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the line could be drawn through the alignment suggested by him and that if it is so done, the damage if the line is drawn through the middle of his property could be avoided and thus the damage to his property could also be minimized. 2. Taking into account this, I feel it is only appropriate that the suggestion made by the petitioner is also considered by the 1st respondent before the line is drawn in implementation of Ext.P2. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the WPC 24285/09 :2 : following directions. (1) That on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall examine the technical feasibility of drawing the line through the eastern boundary of the property as shown by the petitioner in Ext.P1 sketch produced in this writ petition. (2) It is directed that if it is technically feasible and if the beneficiary is willing to incur additional expenditure, the line will be drawn as mentioned by him. It is also clarified that in case the beneficiary is not willing and the petitioner is willing to bear additional expenses, that will also be considered. (3) It is made clear that if for any reason, the aforementioned proposal is found to be not feasible or practical, it will be open to the 1st respondent to draw the line as allowed in Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent. (4) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp