IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 9752 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.SAIDALAVI, S/O.KOYAKUTTY,AGED 65, MUNDATHODU VEEDU,THANUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.P.S.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETRIATE,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, THANUR,MALAPPURAM. 4. THE KERALA ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHYAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,THIRUR, PARAPPANAGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. K.FATHIMA, W/O.KOLAKUNNATH MARAKKAR, KOLLERI HOUSE, P.O.THANUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. A.NABEESA, D/O.MOHAMMED, ALUNGAL HOUSE, P.O.THANUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 to R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. R4 & R5 BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR R6-7 SMT.M.MANJU FOR R6-7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 9752/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.8.2006. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.2007. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.3.2007. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.3.2008. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ROUTE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE ROUTE. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.9752 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order passed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act for drawal of the line. In the order it is inter alia stated as follows: “As per the petition, petitioner stated that to effect the service connections to the beneficiaries Smt. K. Fathima and Smt. A. Nabeesa, has to construct 33 mtrs. WP service with 1 post for WP support to avoid direct crossing over the premises of Smt. A. Nabeesa and 18 mtrs WP service connection to give supply to the beneficiaries K. Fathima and A. Nabeesa respectively. The WP service line has to pass nearly 2 feet through the property of the respondent. The proposed tapping post situates almost in the border of the property. This portion is a unusable extreme corner of the respondents compound and also stated this is the only one route for giving supply to the beneficiaries with shortest and least inconvenience to the property owner. In this circumstances the petitioner prayed to remove the objection raised by the respondent.” Thereafter it is stated that on hearing the parties concerned and perusal of the report of the Additional Tahsildar, it is understood that the proposed WPC.9752/2008. 2 route of the Board is the most shortest feasible and causing less inconvenient route to draw the electric line to the beneficiaries. According to the petitioner, petitioner is having 60 cents of cultivable land. He had given permission to draw electric line from the property of the petitioner to one Thayammu. It is his case that the petitioner, at the time of hearing before the Additional District Magistrate, had pointed out two feasible tapping posts from where electric connection can be drawn to the beneficiaries. It is stated that there is an electric post situated in the property of the land owner of the beneficiaries on the western side of the lodge owned by the landlord and there are no intervening trees or other obstacles and it is almost the same distance as to the proposed route. It is also stated that there is also a second tapping post on the south-west side of the beneficiaries' property from which also line can be drawn. The said post is situated on the boundary of the property of one Radhakrishnan Master and these two alternative tapping posts were not considered by the ADM in his order. Ext.P5 is the sketch showing the proposed route and the two alternative routes. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the line can be drawn from the point 'F' as WPC.9752/2008. 3 shown in Ext.P5. This contention is not seen taken before the Additional District Magistrate. However, I have directed the Standing Counsel to get instructions. Thereupon the learned Standing Counsel submits that the distance of that route by the side of Radhakrishnan Master's property is 57 metres and it will have to cross over the property of Radhakrishnan Master and petitioner's bother's property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to sub section (6) of Section 2 in connection with the definition of the word 'service line'. According to him, it can be drawn only from the main transmission line and consent is required. 3. It is to be noted that in Ext.P4 it has been found that the proposed tapping posts situate almost in the border of the property and this portion is an unusable extreme corner of the respondent's compound. The weather proof service line has to cross nearly two feet through the property of the respondent. Accordingly, it was found that it was the shortest feasible route causing less inconvenience. 4. Having regard to the totality of facts present in this case, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. It is settled law that even if two views are possible there can be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. WPC.9752/2008. 4 In such circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb