IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1845 of 2011 ( ) ======================= AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.1692/2011 DATED 14-11-2011 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER ======================= 1 K.M.MATHEW, S/O.MATHEN, CHARUVILATHEKKETHIL HOUSE ADOOR P.O. KARUVATTA MURI PERINGANADU VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS ========================= 1 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645. 2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ADOOR - 691523. 3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION ADOOR - 691523. 4 RAMANI VARGHEESE, RAMANI NILAYAM, KARUVATTA - 691523. BY ADV.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB MS.C.K.SHERIN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1845/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE- A : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/2011 IN WP(C) NO.1692/2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.1845 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB and also learned counsel, who appeared for the 4th respondent. 2. The dispute is only with regard to shifting of an electricity line. The appellant applied for shifting of 70 metres of overhead line passing over the pathway, which was objected by the 4th respondent for the reason that stay wire is in her property. Since the KSEB approved appellant’s proposal for shifting, the 4th respondent approached the Additional District Magistrate who got an inspection done by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar reported that separate connections could be given to the two buildings of the appellant by drawing just 25 metres of overhead line from the post standing on the main road on W.A.No.1845/2011 2 the eastern side of his property. It is seen that based on the proposal approved by the ADM and confirmed by the learned Single Judge, 70 metres of overhead line will be removed and the petitioner will get two connections by installing just one post and by drawing overhead line of 25 metres. As a result of removal of the existing line and installation of the line as proposed, we find that the 4th respondent will be completely relieved of her botheration about the stay wire and the electric line, which were obviously installed only to give connection to the appellant. We do not find any grievance for the appellant because he is retaining his connections from the new line which has nearly 1/3rd length of the previous overhead line being dismantled. Even though appellant’s counsel submitted that the proposal is to install a post in another person’s property, it is seen that so far no other person has raised objection against the new line proposed. If anybody has objection they can raise the same before the ADM for modification, if required. The KSEB will carry out the W.A.No.1845/2011 3 demolition and reinstallation work without any delay. This Writ Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg