IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31249 of 2011(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THANKAPPAN, AGED 65, S/O.AYYAPPAN CHAKKANATTU HOUSE, AROOKUTTY P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E. BOARD, POOCHAKKAL.PIN- 688 526. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA.PIN- 688 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA.PIN- 688 001. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001. 5. LALAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O.THANKKAPPAN, CHAKKANATTU NIKARATHU, AROOKUTTY.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT .PIN- 688 535. R1 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.31249/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT.15.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DT.11.11.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE DRAFT SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 31249 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Alleppey on 11.11.2011 whereby he permitted the first respondent to draw an electricity line through the southern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of the fifth respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that none of the objections raised by him in Ext.P1 objection have been considered by the Additional District Magistrate before he passed Ext.P2 order. It is contended that the petitioner had suggested an alternate route during the hearing, but there is no discussion about the feasibility of drawing the line through the alternate route. 2. Respondents 1 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit dated 13.12.2011. It is stated that the alternate route suggested by the petitioner during the course of hearing, namely the route F E D A is not a technically feasible route as it involves cutting and removal of a mahagony tree having a girth of 55 inches and a WP(C)No. 31249 of 2011 -2- coconut tree aged 30 years. It is also stated that the line will have to pass through two properties and is longer, thereby involving more expenditure. Respondents 1 and 4 have produced along with their counter affidavit a sketch showing the proposed route. It is contended that there is already a post in existence at point C and from there the line can be drawn by erecting a post at point B through the southern boundary of the petitioner's property. It is contended that the said route is the least expensive and the most feasible and that no inconvenience will be caused to the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed a reply affidavit disputing the said averments. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however contended that the line passes over a shed where his son is residing. The petitioner had no case in Ext.P1 that his son is residing is in a shed put up in a portion of his land. His only case was that his son proposes to put up a building in the land which has an extent of only 6 cents and in which a residential building is already in existence. This Court can therefore safely proceed on the basis that if at all there is a shed, it was put up only after the Additional District Magistrate was moved. That apart, Ext.R1(a) sketch indicates that the proposal is to draw the WP(C)No. 31249 of 2011 -3- line through the southern portion of the land belonging to the petitioner. The length of the line is only 21 metres of which at least 2 metres on either side will be outside the land belonging to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P2 order. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents shall while drawing the line ensure that it is drawn as close as possible to the southern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.