IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 451 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1912/2007 Dated 22/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- K.V. JOSEPH, S/O.LATE K.M. VARGHESE, KOIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANNUVACAUD, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.VINOD.V (EDAPPUNATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VADASSERIKKARA. 5. KRISHNADAS @ SWAMY, OLICKAL HOUSE, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, LCHITTAR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. THANKAMMA, W/O.KRISHNADAS, OLICKAL HOUSE, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, CHITTAR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. WA NO. 451/07 -:2:- 7. SUKUMARAN @ PODICHERUKKAN, OLICKAL HOUSE, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, CHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & 2 SRI ARAVID KUMAR BABU T.K. SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD) FOR R5TO7 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.451 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the 23rd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The 6th respondent applied for electric connection to residential house. The KSEB officials noticed that the line should be drawn only over the property of the appellant herein who did not give consent for drawing line over his property. Therefore, the objection of the appellant was referred to the Additional District Magistrate for passing orders under section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act read with 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The Additional District Magistrate found on facts that the line proposed by the Assistant Engineer, KSEB is the shortest and the least expensive line for giving connection to the applicant. The further finding is that the line proposed over the property of the appellant is above a pathway, the existence of which is denied by the appellant before us. It appears that disputing the existence of the pathway, a civil case is instituted before the civil court. The order of the Additional District Magistrate approving the W.A No.451/07 :-2:- line was disputed before the Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition against which this writ appeal is filed. 2. We have heard the senior counsel Sri K.Ramakumar for appellant and Sri Thajudeen appearing for the KSEB. 3. The contention of the appellant is that there is no pathway existing through his property as claimed by the respondents. We do not think there is any need for us to decide this issue because irrespective of whether the pathway is existing or not, the Additional District Magistrate can authorise drawal of electric line over private property under the statutory provisions. This Court has consistently held that line drawn for giving connection to beneficiaries should be the least expensive and it should be drawn in such a way causing least inconvenience to land owners over whose property line may have to be drawn. Necessarily, line is considered based on feasibility and on the basis of the report submitted by the Board. If there is a pathway used by the people, then approval of the line over such pathway cannot be said to be objectionable to the appellant. On facts, it is clear that the line is drawn through the plantation of the appellant. Even though nobody is residing in the plantation which is frequented by labourers, there is inherent danger in drawing line through rubber plantation because falling of W.A No.451/07 :-3:- branches on electric line will disrupt the supply and will cause danger to human life. However, if there is no other way, necessarily, line has to be retained through plantation. However, counsel for the appellant submitted that alternative route is feasible through appellant's own property. Even though the line is already drawn, we give freedom to the appellant to draw up a sketch showing as to how the line can be shifted through the boundary of the appellant's property and if it is technically feasible to draw the line over other property of the appellant, then the Board should shift the line on appellant's own cost. In other words, the consumer to whom the connection is given should not be burdened with additional financial liability. If the alternative route proposed by the appellant involves crossing of line over the property of any other person, then the appellant will get consent from such person and produce the same along with the proposal. We therefore, dispose of the writ appeal leaving open the appellant to draw up a proposal and submit to the Assistant Executive Engineer who is directed either to shift the line if the line is feasible, on condition that the appellant will pay the additional cost, or if he feels that the drawal of line is not technically feasible, then he will make reference to the Additional District Magistrate and the W.A No.451/07 :-4:- Additional District Magistrate will hear the parties and dispose of the matter either accepting the objection of the Assistant Executive Engineer or by directing shifting. However, in any case, connection given to the beneficiary should not be disturbed and he will not be dragged into any litigation before the Addl.District Magistrate. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- W.A No.451/07 :-5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..