IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20609 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ PONNAMMA, D/O.KALIYAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, MANNOORKIZHAKKETHIL, BHARANIKKAVU P.O., CHARUMMOODU. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHARUMMODU. 3. ROHINIYAMMA, PUTHIYAVEEDU, BHARANIKKAVU, CHARUMMOODU. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOTH KUMAR SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20609 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. A reading of the orders shows that the 3rd respondent applied to the 2nd respondent for supply of electrical energy. The proposal was to draw the electric line, a portion of which was to pass through the petitioner's property. It was objected to and the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent for removing the obstruction. The 1st respondent thereafter issued notice to the parties and passed Ext.P2, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. A reading of the order shows that except 5 metres of the line to be drawn, rest of the line is to pass through the existing pathway used by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not affected prejudicially. I do not think in the factual circumstances, any irregularity can be found in Ext.P2 warranting interference in this proceedings. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp