IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3595 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- ALEX.T.J., S/O.JOSEPH, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KAITHAKUZHY, AADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.K.SIJU MR.S.SUDHEESHKAR MR.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE (T.C), AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: nl. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.3595 of 2010-Y ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the third respondent Additional District Magistrate, whereby the respondent Board has permitted to draw the electric line through the petitioner’s property. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit, strongly rebutting the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition, stating that the present route approved by the second respondent vide Ext.P4 is the most feasible route, causing less hindrance to the public. It is stated in para 3 of the said affidavit that the route was clearly notified in the Kerala Gazette dtd.28.3.2006, as borne by Ext.R2(a) and that the petitioner is not at all justified in approaching this Court now, after about '4' years, seeking to shift the line, contending that it has caused loss and hardship to the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 that the line mostly passes through the 'paddy field' and the property of the petitioner itself is a partly W.P(C) No.3595 of 2010-Y 2 filled paddy field. It is further stated that the present 33 KV line is constructed along with the 110KV line, wherever possible, to reduce the inconvenience to the general public. Further, there is a proposal for a new 11 KV feeder along the PWD road situated on the eastern side of the petitioner's property and if the 33 KV line is deviated as per the proposal of the petitioner, shut down of 33 KV Sub Station will be necessary at the time of maintenance of the 11 KV feeders and hence the proposal put forward by the petitioner is not technically feasible, besides the fact that already there is an 11 KV line along the eastern side of the said road. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, for construction of this line, one tower has to be erected in the property of the petitioner and the height of the tower is 14 mtrs, which can maintain more than enough clearance needed. Referring to the scope of the project and also the fact that the petitioner is also a beneficiary of the same, there is another specific contention for the respondent Board that the Board does not require consent from the petitioner for the Schemes published in Kerala Gazette. As per Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act 1956, the Board can exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority in this regard. W.P(C) No.3595 of 2010-Y 3 3. After hearing both the sides and also taking note of the position as on date, including the fact that 33 KV line is having total length of 9 Kms with 131 tower locations; out of which 128 were completed and that major portion of the line is constructed through the private properties, making less hindrance to the public as far as possible, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. Absolutely no steps of arbitrariness or malafides are pointed out on the part of respondents in connection with the cause of action projected in the Writ Petition. The action being pursued by the respondents is quite in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and Ext.P4 order has been passed considering the public interest at large and the same is not assailable under any circumstances. Accordingly interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.3595 of 2010-Y 4