IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32216 of 2008(I) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. ARUSWAMY S/O.KARUPPANNA KOWNDER PUTHUKKAD HOUSE, ADIYAKANDIYUR, P.O.THAVALAM, ATTAPPADY, PALAKKAD. 2. PAZHANISWAMY, S/O. KARUPPANNA KOWNDER, PUTHUKKAD HOUSE, ADIYAKANDIYUR, P.O.THAVALAM, ATTAPPAPDY, PALAKKAD. 3. PARAMESHARAN,S/O. KARUPPANNA KOWNDER PUTHUKKAD HOUSE, ADIYAKANDIYUR, ATTAPPADY, P.O. THAVALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JOKUTTY V.N. VALIYAVEETTILPARAMBIL, THAVALAM.P.O.ATTAPPADY, PALAKKAD. 3. P.R.BALACHANDRAN, PAROTTIL HOUSE, PAKKULAM, THAVALAM, P.O. ATTAPADY, PALAKKAD. 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD W.P.(C). NO.32216/08 I 5. THE SECRETARY, ATTAPPADY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD. R1 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS FOR R2 R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO.32216 OF 2008 I PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN (ALTERNATIVE ROUTE). EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION MADE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION MADE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2008. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR EXTENDING ELECTRIFICATION PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF STONE INSCRIPTIONS/BOARD (IN WHICH 2ND PETITIONER'S NAME ALSO IS SHOWN) ERECTED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 32216 OF 2008 I -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P6, which is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. By the order under challenge, permission was granted to draw the electric line across a Panchayat road. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would point out that there are other alternate routes. He points out that from a perusal of Ext.P1 Sketch it would be revealed that as there is an existing line from “F” to “G” and from points “A” and “E”, the lines could be drawn as “A-B-C-D-E” for giving connection to the beneficiaries. This is opposed by the counsel for the WPC.32216/08 I 2 respondents. It is pointed out that it would have to cross through the property of others. It is pointed out that the present proposal is only a proposal for drawing line along a Panchayat Road and the standing counsel points out that the amount has been remitted by the Block Panchayat. Counsel for petitioners would submit that it is true that the drawing of the proposed line would not be over any of the properties of the petitioners. The drawing of the line is through a public road. So, clearly, there is no substantial injustice which would be caused to the petitioners. It may be true, as pointed out by him, that in Ext.P6, discussion of the matter as is enjoined upon the Authority, is not there. In proceedings under Article 226, ultimately the Court is concerned with whether injustice is done and whether non- interference will result in miscarriage of justice. Looked from that perspective, I would think that I need not exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioners and grant relief to WPC.32216/08 I 3 the petitioners. In such circumstances, I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the Writ Petition. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.