IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 11934 of 2008(U) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MALATHI R.NAYAK ,W/O.B.R.NAYAK BELLIPADY HOUSE, DELAMPADY VILLAGE PANJIKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KASARGOD. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B CHERKALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT 4. K.NARAYANA BHAT,S/O. K.KESAVA BHAT KAJE HOUSE, HOLAKARA, PANJIKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.SHRIHARI FOR R4 SMT.P.VANI FOR R4 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN R2 & R3 BY SHRI P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.11934 OF 2008 U PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF PLAN RELATING TO R.S.NOS.389 AND 394 PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.80 OF 2007, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF KASARAGOD. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.3.2008, NO.D1-553/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), KASARAGOD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 11934 OF 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 is the subject matter of challenge. It is an order passed by the Deputy Collector & Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. By the same, for giving connection to the party respondent, the Magistrate has permitted drawing of the line involving, according to petitioner, cutting of valuable trees. It is found by the Magistrate that the substitute proposal by the petitioner from the transformer will require an additional line of 130 Metres than the proposed one. Accordingly, the proposal suggested by the Assistant Executive Engineer, ie. from the post near to the Pump House which is causing least damage, was accepted. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner, with reference to Ext.P1, points out that the proposed WPC.11934/08 U 2 line will cut across the property of the petitioner. He further submits that the alternate proposal will involve drawing of the line from the point of “T” and along the public road “R - R1” and it will cause no damage or inconvenience to anyone-else. It is further contended that this route should have been accepted. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the party respondent points out that it is difficult to get power allocation and huge amount has to be spent. She, in fact, suggested that instead of drawing the line along the route “T1 - L2 - L2” as approved, the line may be drawn along the alignment as follows: The line can be taken from the point “T1” and if there is any other post nearer to the boundary of the petitioner's property and further it can be drawn along the boundary of the petitioner's property to the south and further to the south - west and thereafter give connection to the petitioner's property. She also relied in this case on an unreported Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C). No.24723/06. I certainly WPC.11934/08 U 3 find that if the line can be drawn in such a way that the line is not across the property of the petitioner as it appears to be at present, the injustice that may be caused to the petitioner can be substantially redressed. Counsel for the party respondent submits that if the line is shifted as aforesaid, the respondent will bear the additional expenses which becomes necessary for carrying out the said proposal. This is a matter, I feel, however, should be examined by the Magistrate. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: Ext.P2 is quashed and the first respondent will take up the matter. In view of the fact that it is being remitted back, the petitioner, the third respondent and the fourth respondent will appear before the first respondent on 17.11.2008 at 11 A.M. before the first respondent. The first respondent will thereafter consider the matter in the light of the observations made in this Judgment. He may also conduct a site inspection. Thereafter, he will consider whether the original alternate route referred to in Ext.P2 or the route suggested by the party respondent is more WPC.11934/08 U 4 feasible and less expensive, and pass appropriate orders. Appropriate orders as aforesaid shall be passed within a period of three weeks from 17.11.2008. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.