IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 16506 of 2010(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- V.M.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 53, S/O.MADHAVAN, VADHYARUPARAMBIL, PARAVOOTHARA, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, CHENDAMANGALAM, PARAVUR TALUK. 2. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.SUBRAHAMANYAN, PALAKUTTICKAL, PARAVOOTHARA,CHENDAMANGALAM. 3. SIVANANDAN, S/O.RAMAN, VADHYARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAVOOTHARA,CHENDAMANGALAM. 4. O.P.PANKAJAKSHAN, OTTAKANDATHI HOUSE, PARAVOOTHARA, CHENDAMANGALAM. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR R4 BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.K.S.RAJESH. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16506/2010 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/04/2010 FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE NO.M5/8026/2009. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/04/2010 FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE NO.M5/52076/09. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/05/2010 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): A DETAILED SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ELECTRIC LINE AND ALTERNATE ROUTE APPROVED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. R4(A): COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 10/09/2009. R4(B): COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.M5-33949/96 DTD. 3/06/96. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16506 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 8th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 69 cents comprised in Survey Nos.369/9 and 368/5 of Paravur Village. Respondents 2 and 3 herein have applied for electrical connection to their residential houses. Based on their applications, the electric line was proposed to be drawn through the property of the fourth respondent. However, the fourth respondent objected to the same and that resulted in the reference of the issue to the fifth respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The fourth respondent herein made a submission before the fifth respondent that the feasible route for the purpose of drawing electric line to the residential buildings of respondents 2 and 3 would be drawing electric line from the post that was already installed in the property of the petitioner. It was in the said circumstances that the petitioner herein was made a party to the proceedings before the fifth respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with notice and then, hearing was conducted on 12.1.2010 and WP(C).No.16506/2010 2 then, on 10.5.2010. As per Ext.P3 order, on 10.5.2010, the second respondent therein viz., the petitioner herein objected to the alternate proposal suggested by the first respondent therein viz., the fourth respondent herein and put forth another suggestion. The suggestion of the petitioner was to draw electric line from the post existing in his property after shifting the same towards the side of the pathway. Obviously, it was based in the said circumstances that the fifth respondent passed the impugned order. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 contains misstatement. It is submitted that the petitioner had not put forth such a suggestion for drawing line through his property. That apart, it is contended even if such a suggestion was made, the 5th respondent was duty bound to consider and identify the shortest and earliest route to draw the electric connection. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suggestion put forth by the petitioner herein before the 5th respondent was that even in case of necessity it should be drawn through the post already installed in his property after shifting it towards the side of the pathway as a third proposal. It is thus obvious that the petitioner also did not have a case that under no circumstances, line should not be drawn from the post already installed in his property. In the context of the contentions, it is relevant to refer to Ground (d) in the WP(C).No.16506/2010 3 Writ Petition. When that be the position, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot now turn around and said that electric line for the purpose of giving electric connection to the residential houses of respondents 2 and 3 shall not be drawn from the post which has already been installed in his property. Of course, his suggestion was to shift it towards the side of the pathway for the purpose of giving electric connection as sought for by respondents 2 and 3. A scanning of Ext.P3 would suggest that it is not infected with no illegality warranting interference. Normally, in the said circumstances, this Court would not interfere with an order passed in the matter of drawing of electric line. Nevertheless, in this case, it appears that the petitioner is more aggrieved by the direction in Ext.P3 requiring him to bear the expenses for shifting of the said post. According to the petitioner, the suggestion put forth by him should not have been construed as an agreement at all. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents submits that the 2nd and 3rd respondents would bear the necessary expenses for the same. The third respondent was present in person before this Court. He has expressed his willingness to bear the expenses for shifting of the post along with the second respondent. This is recorded. I am constrained in the circumstances to modify Ext.P3 order to the extent it directs the petitioner to bear the expenses WP(C).No.16506/2010 4 for shifting of the post. Accordingly, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to bear the expenses for shifting of the post already installed in the property of the petitioner and the same shall be shifted to the side of the pathway in terms of Ext.P3 order for the purpose of giving electric connection to the residential buildings belonging to respondents 2 and 3. After such shifting, they shall be given electric connection expeditiously, at any rate, within 10 days. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS