IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2953 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35131/2009 Dated 16/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ N.CHANDRAN ALIAS AYYAPPAN,S/O.KRISHNAN, NEDUMANNIL HOUSE, KARAKKURUSSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTIRCAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, MANNARKKAD. 3. P.C.MOOSA, PUTHUKADICHOLA HOUSE, MUHTUKAD, MANKURISSI,VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. 4. DASAN, PALATHULLIYIL HOUSE, MUTHUKAD, MANKURISSI, VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. 5. SREEDEVI W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, THACHANAMKODE HOUSE, VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2953 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The writ petitioner having lost his case before the learned Single Judge, challenges the judgment by which the decision rendered by the Additional District Magistrate on an application by the Kerala State Electricity Board official under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has been confirmed. 2. Adverting firstly to Ext.P2 decision of the Additional District Magistrate, it is stated without challenge that during the course of trial Sri.Chandran (writ petitioner) argued that he is objecting to the crossing even though the fact is that no loss is expected for the time being, but it will affect his property in future. This apprehension of the probable loss or W.A. No.2953 of 2009 2 damage in future was not to be taken cognizance by any authority. This would have been just probable or even imaginary. It also needs to be mentioned that the line that is to be drawn is only about 75 metres of overhead line and 34 metres of weather proof line with a couple of posts to energise the residential building of the proposed consumer. 3. Though the learned counsel for the appellant very strenuously argued before us that the Additional District Magistrate did not provide an opportunity to place appropriate materials and has not considered the relevant materials, a reading of Ext.P2 will categorically show that the Additional District Magistrate had adverted to and considered all relevant facts and materials and had come to a just and reasonable conclusion. Neither was the learned Single Judge nor are we sitting in appeal on that decision of the Additional District Magistrate. The learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the W.A. No.2953 of 2009 3 writ petition since no ground of error of law or jurisdiction had been effectively shown. The writ appeal hence fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Board shall ensure that the line is drawn at the earliest. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns