IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27415 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.GIRIJA, VENKADU PUTHEN VEETTIL KOONANVENGA, CHULLALAM, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, NEDUMANGADU. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHULLIMANOOR, THGIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SHEELA, ARYA BHAVAN, VENKADU, CHULLALAM,KOONANVENGA PO NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 27415 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, permitting the 3rd respondent to draw electricity line through the petitioner's property for giving electricity supply to the 5th respondent. Petitioner's contention is that there is an alternate route through a stream going through the side of the 5th respondent's property along which line can be drawn without disturbing anybody. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent to draw the electricity line through the stream. 2. The learned standing counsel submits that it is true that there is a stream and by the side of the stream there is a rubble packed pathway which is being used by the residents of the locality. If posts are to be put in that pathway, that would effectively block the pathway and people would not be able to use the pathway freely if the posts are there. W.P(C) No. 27415 of 2009 -2- 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Along with a memo, the counsel for the petitioner has produced a sketch showing the proposed and alternate routes. From the same, I find that there is already an electric line through the petitioner's property and what is now proposed is only an extension from the same to the 5th respondent's property. Apart from that, petitioner could not convince me that line can be drawn through the side of the stream by putting posts in the pathway by the side of the stream without obstructing of the use of the pathway. Therefore, I am not satisfied that Ext.P4 order can be interfered with in any manner. However, I make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to seek shifting of the electric line along the boundaries of the petitioner's property in accordance with law. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs