IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24139 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.J. VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.U. JOSEPH, AUTOKKARAN HOUSE, EASTERN BAZAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 2. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REP.BY SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELECTRIC DIVISION), THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BSNL, THRISSUR. 5. CHIEF ELECRICAL INSPECTOR, INSPECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. *6. ELECTORAL INSPECTOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL FOR R4 SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION FOR R2 & R3 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R2 & R3 SRI.M.R.DHANIL FOR R2 & R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN SRI. MATHEW K. PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL FOR BSNL. (CNTD....) WP(C).No. 24139 of 2008(W) -2- *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE ORDER DTD. 14.8.2008 IN W.P.(C). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 24139 OF 2008 W ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate granting permission to draw electric line under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act overruling the objection of the petitioner, over a public pathway. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, along with his family members, is the owner of 4.5 cents of land and a three storied building on the one side of the proposed line. It is stated that maintenance has to be done for the building. It is further stated that the line is proposed to be drawn in a triangular manner and that will affect the maintenance. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is the technical manual issued by the KSEB. Ext.P3 is the sketch showing the position WPC.24139/08 : 2 : of the building of the petitioner and the way over which the proposed line is to be built. It is stated that the statutory clearance will not be provided. It is also contended that alternate routes have not been explored. It is stated that fire engine is to be called for in emergency. It may not be possible to get the fire engine in the building in emergency if the proposed line is drawn. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 6th respondent as directed by this Court. The 6th respondent is the Electrical Inspector, Thrissur. He has in the counter affidavit stated, inter alia, as follows. “ 4. It is respectfully submitted that, the proposed 11 KV overhead line is passing through the public road between two buildings. Part of one building belongs to the petitioner and the other is Kalliyath building. Thus for drawing an overhead line as per Rule 80(2) of Indian Electricity Rule, 1956, only horizontal clearance is applicable and as per Rules it is only 1.2 ms. 5. It is respectfully submitted that after receiving written request from District Collector, Thrissur for ascertaining the statutory clearance of the proposed new OH Line, the proposed site WPC.24139/08 : 3 : was inspected on 9.5.2008 from the office of the Electrical Inspector, Thrissur. During the inspection it was noticed that required statutory horizontal clearance of 1.2 m can be maintained for the proposed drawal of 11 KV overhead line if the same is drawn in a triangular formation or vertical formation of 3 phases. It was also noticed that there was no such line drawn at the time of inspection and hence informed the District Collector, Thrissur that final clearance from Electrical Inspector has to be obtained by the supplier after drawing the lines but before charging. Then only actual horizontal clearance as per Rule 80(2) of Indian Electricity Rule 1956 can be physically verified.” Thereafter, he has proceeded to state that in abundant caution the actual horizontal clearance can be accurately measured only after completion of the construction of 11 KV OH line and that only consideration is whether the proposed line possess the statutory horizontal clearance as per Rule 80 (2) of the Indian Electrical Rules. 3. As far as the complaint of non-consideration of alternate route is concerned, it is not in dispute that apart from WPC.24139/08 : 4 : filing of Ext.P1 written objection, the petitioner has not filed any written objection. I do not see any specific alternate route proposed in Ext.P1. Of course the petitioner had a case that the line can be drawn through underground. That has been considered and the authority took a view that the line through underground is not feasible as the existing lines will be seriously damaged and the modernized footpath will be badly damaged and BSNL cables are in existence in the same route, which are also in danger. There is every likelihood on damaging them if it is struck. It is also viewed that if the existing 11 KV underground cable is to be replaced, there will be disruption of electricity supply for several days/long duration to BSNL paralyzing telephone network. It is thereafter taking note of the fact that the Electrical Inspector, who is technically competent, has submitted that the line can be drawn in a triangular manner and the drawal of line is feasible and after rejecting the proposal to draw the new underground cable, that authority has proceeded to overrule WPC.24139/08 : 5 : the objection of the petitioner and further directed that the commissioning should be done only after getting opinion from the Electrical Inspector if completion of the work. 4. The petitioner does not have a case that the line is to be drawn across the property of the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the line is to be drawn over a puramboke road. The Electricity Rules have admittedly laid down the criteria to be observed in the matter of distance to be kept from other lines carrying electricity at high voltage depending on the amount of voltage being carried. The proposed line is a 11 KV line. In regard to 11 KV line as stated by the Electrical Inspector in his affidavit as also pointed out by a perusal of Rule 80(2) of Electricity Rules, the line has to be drawn leaving a horizontal distance of 1.2 mtrs from the building. It is the case of the respondent, on the basis of the Inspector's opinion that the line can be drawn after complying with the requirements. The proposal accepted by the Magistrate is also on the said line. If that is so, it may WPC.24139/08 : 6 : not be possible for this Court sitting in judicial review to re- appreciate the matter to come to a different conclusion, and it cannot be said that the view taken by the Magistrate is a perverse view. In such circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner has made out any case to interfere. Needless to say, the line before its commissioning the Electrical Inspector will have to carry out the inspection as contemplated in Ext.P2 order. The fact that such an inspection is contemplated under the order cannot be taken as a ground against the order itself as is sought to be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That is only by way of abundant caution and the affidavit of the Electrical Inspector also is on the same lines. So, I would think that the interest of the petitioner is sufficiently safeguard. In this view of the matter, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE