IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30103 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANUPAMA, D/O.P.VISWANATHAN, CHALAPPURATH VARIYATH, NIRMAL, CHETTIPPADI POST, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PRAMEELA, W/O.PRAKASHAN, HOUSE NO.PP XIV/250A, KACHOTTIL HOUSE, POST CHETTIPPADY, PARAPPANANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 319. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM ADV.MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30103 of 2009(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.4.2009. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 5.8.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN PROCEEDINGS NO. E3-20697/09 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 10.8/2009 OF THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF SKETCH DATED 27.7.2009 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUVA. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 16.9.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN PROCEEDINGS NO.E3. 20697/2009 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E3-20697/09 DTED 7.10.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 8.10.2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7(a) - TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 8.10.2009 EVIDENCING ISSUANCE OF EXT.P7 NOTICE. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 30103 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which the 2nd respondent proposes to draw electric line to give electricity supply to the 3rd respondent, for which the 1st respondent has granted permission to the 2nd respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Petitioner's only contention is that in so far as the properties lie adjacently and the line is drawn from the petitioner's property instead of putting a post in the petitioner's property, the post for giving supply to the 3rd respondent can be put in the property belonging to the 3rd respondent and her father- in-law avoiding inconvenience to the petitioner. 2. Despite serving notice by special messenger, the 3rd respondent has not cared to appear and contest the matter. I do not find any reason for the 2nd respondent to deny the request of the petitioner, in so far as neither the 2nd respondent nor the 3rd respondent would not in any way be prejudiced by allowing that request of the petitioner to put the post and draw line to the beneficiary's property, instead of drawing line directly from the W.P(C) No. 30103 of 2009 -2- petitioner's property to the beneficiary's house. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition as follows: The 2nd respondent shall re-draw the electricity connection to the 3rd respondent by putting a post in the properties belonging to the beneficiary and her father-in-law as suggested in Ext.P4 sketch. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P6 order of the Additional District Magistrate court would stand modified accordingly. If the 2nd respondent is entitled to recover the cost of putting the post, from the beneficiary under the rules, the respondents would be free to do so. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs