IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27558 of 2006(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. KOVVAKKARATHI SAROJINI, W/O.T.V.LAKSHMANAN, PANAPPUZHA, P.O.PANAPPUZHA, VIA.M.M.BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.V.LAKSHMANAN, S/O.RAMUNNI, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PANAPPUZHA, P.O.PANAPPUZHA, VIA.M.M.BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN SRI.PHILJO VARGHESE PHILIPS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. P.P.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.K.E.APPA, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, PANAPPUZHA, P.O.PANAPPUZHA, VIA.M.M.BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA REVINDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.27558/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/2/2006. P1(A) COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSAL FOR DRAWING ELECTRIC LINES TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S RESIDENCE. P1(B) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER P1(C) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH. P1(D) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR DATED 23/6/06. P2 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONERS BEF THE 1ST RESPONDENT,DATED 30/3/06. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A6-7689/06 DATED 7/8/06 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF ESTIMATE OF THE BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED BY PETITIONERS FOR THEIR DAUGHTER. P4(A) COPY OF THE PLAN OF BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED BY PETITIONERS FOR THEIR DAUGHTER. P5 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 7/8/06. P6 COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE SITE. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AS 481/04 DATED 31/7/06 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH. P8 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 22/8/06 TO DEMANDING TO CANCEL EXT.P7. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE SKETCH R2(B) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 10/02/2006. R2(C) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KADANNAPPLLY PANANPUZHA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY DATED 31/01/2005. /TRUE COPY/ sts P.S.TO.JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 27558 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order dated 7.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur whereby he permitted the Kerala State Electricity Board to draw the electricity line through a public pathway and also through the property of the beneficiary himself for the purpose of giving electricity connection is under challenge in this writ petition. The order impugned discloses that a post was already in existence in the public pathway through which the beneficiary has a right of way. The Additional District Magistrate has by the impugned order permitted the Board to draw 30 meters of overhead line through the pathway by erecting a post and from there to draw 30 meters of weather proof line to the residence of the beneficiary. Both the weather proof and the overhead lines do not pass through any portion of the petitioner's property. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the petitioner is without any merit. 2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that line could have been drawn through another route, for which Smt.Paru had given permission, the learned standing counsel submitted that later the consent was withdrawn and that route is more W.P.(C) No.27558 of 2006 2 circuitous. The present proposal is to draw the electricity line through a public pathway. The petitioner cannot therefore have any legitimate grievance. That apart, the line was already drawn on 14.8.2006, before the instant writ petition was filed. Five years have passed thereafter. There is no reason to disturb that state of affairs at this distance of time. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27558 of 2006 JUDGMENT Dated:- 20th October, 2011 --------------------------------------