IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38029 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. KOZHUNNANTAVITA SAFIA, D/O.KALANDAN, 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, PAZHANKAV, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KOZHUNNANTAVITA KARTHYAYANI, D/O.KANNAN, 63 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, PAZHANKAV, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E. BOARD, VADAKARA SOUTH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. KOZHUNNANAVITA CHANDRAN, S/O.KANARAN, 61 YEARS, TAILOR, PAZHANKAV, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. KOZHUNNANTAVITA NARAYANI, PAZHANKAVU, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. KOZHUNNANTAVITA KRISHNAN, PAZHANKAVU, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC R2 BY G.P. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF REPORT BY ADDL. TAHSILDAR, VADAKARA WITH A SKETCH TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DT.17.5.05. P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 15169/2006(E) DT.10.8.2006 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE DT.6.12.07 NO.REF.D2.24683/06. P4: TRUE COPY OF REPORT FROM R1 TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DT.5.2.2007. P5: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOVE REPORT, FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS DT. -5/2007, BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.38029 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging Ext.P3 order which is issued by the ADM based on direction issued by this court in an earlier W.P. filed by the petitioner. I have seen the sketches produced and also gone through Ext.P3 order. There is not justification to interfere with Ext.P3 order because the line approved is over a pathway which is used by beneficiary to reach his house. It is stated by the ADM that the pathway goes beyond the house of beneficiary. Therefore, obviously pathway is used by the public. Moreover, ADM on inspection found that the alternate route suggested by the petitioners is through land in which there is thick vegetation and if live line is drawn over such property, massive destruction of trees is involved. This court has consistently held that live electric line as far as possible should be drawn over the side of road, pathway, canal etc., thereby avoiding private property. In this case the line approved is over an existing pathway. Obviously petitioners cannot insist on drawing the line over small extent of private property of others merely because such land owners are related to the beneficiary. The ADM's order is quite reasonable and consistent with 2 the judicial decisions on the topic. The W.P. is therefore dismissed as devoid of any merit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms