IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3826 of 2008()
1. HARIHARAN PULLAI, ALIAS HARI, SON OF
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/12/2008
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 19775 of 2007(D)
#1. K.A.ABRAHAM RESIDING AT BEDHANI HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. REVI, RESIDING AT KODITHARAYIL HOUSE,
4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
! For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
^ For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
% Dated :25/11/2008
: O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““
W.P.(C) No. 19775 OF 2007 D
““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order
granting permission to draw line for giving connection to the 3rd
respondent.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
standing counsel for the Board, learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel
for petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 commission report would
show that the proposed line is unsuitable. The extent of land is 13
cents and alternate routes are there, it is contended.
3. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents
that the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner cannot be
accepted. The first alternate route has to pass over the properties
of four persons which are shown as No.4, 5, 6 and 7. Its length
would be 86 meters of Over Head line and 17 meters of Weather
Proof line. As far as the second alternate route is concerned, the
properties of two persons will have to be crossed, namely 9 and
10 in Ext.R2(a). The length will be 128 meters of over head line
WPC.19775/07
: 2 :
and for this posts will have to be made. As far as the proposed
line ABC is concerned, the property crossing will be limited to one
only, namely the petitioner.
4. I put a query to the counsel whether the line can be
drawn in such a manner that it passes along the boundary of the
property of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel would submit
that if two posts are erected, the line can be drawn along the
boundary of the property of the petitioner to the extent possible.
Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is agreeable to bear the
additional expenses for putting of two posts. In such
circumstances, Ext.P5 is modified to the extent only that the line is
permitted to be drawn through the property of the petitioner but
subject to the modification that it will be drawn in such a manner
that it progresses along the boundaries of the property of the
petitioner as far as possible and with the aid of two additional
posts the expense of which would be met by the 3rd respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks