IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6286 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BEERANKUNJU,S/O.LATE KUNJU MOHAMMED, MANAMEL HOUSE,PARAPURAM,MANNOM.PO,N.PARAVUR. 2. ABDUL MAJEED,S/O.HAMEED,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPURAM, MANNOM.PO. 3. SAJANA SUDHEER,W/O.SUDHEER, MANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNOM.P.O. 4. SHAJITHA,W/O.P.H.HARIS,PARUTHINGAL PARAMBU,MANNOM.P.O. 5. E.SELBETH,W/O.SUNNAJAN,ALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPURAM, MANNOM.PO. 6. ABDULLA, S/O.KUNJUMOIDEEN,THANDARA PARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTANAM,VADAKKEKKARA.PO, N.PARUR. 7. RAHEEMMON.T.Y,S/O.YOUSUF,THOPPIL PARAMB, MANNOM.P.O. 8. BEERAN ASHRAF,RAYAMVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNOM. 9. SHIHAB.P.A,S/O.HADER ALI,PAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPURAM, P.O.MANNOM. 10. K.K.RAJAPPAN,S/O.LATE KOCHAMAN,KARIYIL, ASOK BHAVAN, PARAPURAM,MANNOM.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,SUB STATION,SUB DIVISION,KURUMASSERY,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, N.PARAVUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 6286 OF 2009 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenge Ext.P3 which is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the Board and learned Government Pleader. A statement is filed by the learned standing counsel. Annexure-I sketch is produced along with the statement. In Ext.P3, it is stated that respondents 1 to 4 therein were absent and the respondents requested to shift the proposed line. It is also noticed that there is no other alternate route to draw the proposed line and the petitioner agreed to draw the line using tall posts. The direction in Ext.P3 is to draw the line as proposed using the tallest posts available at present. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that though notice was issued to respondents 1 to 4, they were not present. According to the statement, the route for the proposed WPC.6286/09 : 2 : 33 KV line was finalised. The first portion 'AB' marked in Annexure-I of the route is along the existing LT line as a combined formation and this portion is along the side of the private road and passes through the boundaries of the plots of petitioners 2, 6, 9 and 10. The portion 'BC' is along the right of way of the existing 110 KV line and only the plots of petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are coming in this portion. It is pointed out that the line is in no way affecting petitioners 5, 7 and 8. It is also stated that the alternate route which is proposed in the writ petition is not a feasible one. Reasons are given as follows: “ (i) The line will have to construct over a workshop building and a residential building; (ii) The line will cross the existing 66KV double circuit line and 11KV double circuit line twice. Maintaining statutory clearances for this crossing will be difficult; (iii) More objections may arise from the residents in that area. ” 4. Having heard the parties, I would not think that the petitioners have made out a case for any interference. Learned standing counsel points out that the respondent will use posts having a height of 14 metres. I record the submission and direct WPC.6286/09 : 3 : that the posts having a height of 14 metres shall be used for complying with the direction contained in Ext.P3. Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE