IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 36780 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- JAYAN, S/O. SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS VISHNUVILASAM, POOVATTUR WEST MAVADI, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOTTARAKKARA ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. SUSEELA, AKHIL MANDIRAM, MADATHINAPPUZHA MAVADI, KOTTARAKKARA.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN 691523 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE FOR COMMISSIONER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36780 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITINER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 27.7.2009 FILED BY PETITIONER TO THE DIST. CLLECTOR, KOLLAM. EXT.P2. COPY OF ROUGHT SKETCH. EXT.P3. COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.12.2009 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ROUGHT SKETCH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------- EX.R3(A). COPY OF THE SKETCH AND ESTIMATE OF THE 2ND RESPNDENT. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 36780 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is one among the neighbors of the 3rd respondent has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P3 order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Magisrate, Kollam whereby he permitted the 2nd respondent herein to draw electricity line along the southern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner and two others for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of the 3rd respondent. On receipt of the 3rd respondent's application for electricity connection the officers of the Board took steps to draw the electricity line in the manner now permitted by the Additional District Magistrate. The petitioner objected to it though two other neighboring owners namely Sri. Joy and Smt.Jayasree did not object to it. In view of the objection raised by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent moved the Additional District Magistrate in terms of section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Additional District Magistrate there upon issued notice to the parties. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 appeared. The 2nd respondent stated that the proposal submitted WP (C) No. 36780 of 2009 2 by the Board is the most feasible and the least expensive. The petitioner contended that the line can be drawn through the property of Sri.Raghavan, Sri.Pushkaran and Smt. Sudhamani. The Additional District Magistrate heard the parties on 29.10.2009 and conducted a local inspection on 3.12.2009. The Additional District Magistrate found after inspection, that the proposal to draw the line along the southern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner and two others is the least expensive, while the alternate proposal suggested by the petitioner is to draw the line through the properties of three others which necessarily requires their consent. By the impugned order, the Additional District Magistrate permitted the 2nd respondent to draw the line in the manner suggested by him. Exhibit P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court has inspected the locality and submitted a report along with a sketch. The Advocate Commissioner has reported that the 3rd respondent's house is located deep inside rubber plantations belonging to various persons and there is no motorable-path way or road access to WP (C) No. 36780 of 2009 3 her property and that she is using a path way half a meter wide to reach her house. The Advocate Commissioner has also filed a sketch which shows that the proposal of the Board is to draw the line along the southern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner and two others. Though the Advocate Commissioner has suggested an alternate route A-B-C-D-E-F he has reported that the said route passes through the properties of Sri.Raghavan, Sri.Pushkaran and Smt. Suddhamani. A reference to the sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner would show that the alternate proposal suggested by the petitioner is to draw the line across the properties of the aforesaid three persons. The Advocate Commissioner has also reported that a 11 KV line is passing through the properties of Sri.Pushkaran and Smt. Suddhamani. It is not disputed that Smt.Jayasree and Sri.Joy who own the lands lying between the properties of the 3rd respondent and the petitioner have not objected to the line being drawn along the southern boundary of their properties. 3. It is also not in dispute that the consent of Sri.Raghavan, Sri.Pushkaran and Smt.Sudhamani must be obtained if the line is to be drawn through their property in the manner proposed by WP (C) No. 36780 of 2009 4 the petitioner. Naturally there will be objection from the said persons also. It is thus evident from the materials on record that the present proposal which was approved by the Additional District Magistrate causes the least inconvenience to the property owners including the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that the proposed line will pass through or cut across his property. He does not dispute the fact that the proposal is to draw the line along the southern boundary of his property. In such circumstances, I am of opinion that the challenge to Exhibit P3 is without any merit. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. rkc