IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 646 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VANAJAKUMARI, KRISHNALAYAM, EREZHA SOUTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASST. ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THATTARAMBALAM. 3. RAVEENDRAN, RAJESH BHAVANAM, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., EREZHA SOUTH, MAVELIKKARA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN FOR R3 SRI.P.G.MANU (MAMMALASSERY) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO. 646 OF 2008 B PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16.8.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 3.11.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.K.DIS.N2-43599/07 DATED 5.12.2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY WHEREIN THE ELECTRIC LINE IS DRAWN. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 646 OF 2008 B -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate granting permission to the Electricity Board under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. In Ext.P3, the Magistrate has taken the view that there will be no harm for drawing the line over the eastern side of the property of the petitioner after installing a post in the property of the proposed consumer (the third respondent herein). It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that there is an alternate route. He would contend that if a post is installed in the property of the petitioner on the western side and the post existing in the third respondent's property is shifted to the property of the third respondent on the western side, connection can be given to the third respondent, without causing injury to the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for WPC.646/08 B 2 petitioner that there was no line through the western side earlier. I feel that the alternate proposal of the petitioner can be directed to be considered. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the same with notice to the petitioner, second respondent and the third respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. I make it clear that the line already drawn shall not be disturbed unless the Magistrate finds that the proposal of the petitioner can be accepted. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.