IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9027 of 2008(Y)
1. N.K.SEETHALAKSHMY, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
5. V.HARIDASAN, S/O.NARAYANAN
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 9027 OF 2008 (Y)
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that she owns 1 acre of land in
R.S.No.136/11 of Thalassery Taluk. It is stated that through her
property, laying four electric posts, line has already been drawn
to supply electricity to the neighbouring premises.
2. In addition to that when the 5th respondent applied for
a power connection, the 4th respondent drew up a proposal to
draw the line through the petitioner’s property. That was resisted
by the petitioner and thereupon the 4th respondent took up the
matter before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued
notice to the parties and Ext.P1 objection was filed by the
petitioner in which an alternate route was also suggested. The
site in question was inspected by the 1st respondent on
7/12/2007. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order dated 31/1/2008 was passed.
The order was communicated to the petitioner on 14/3/2008.
3. On 17/3/2008, this writ petition was moved and an
interim order was obtained by the petitioner. Petitioner contends
that despite having conveyed the said order to the respondents,
WPC 9027/08
:2 :
on 17th itself, they drew the line to the premises of the 5th
respondent and energised the same.
4. On the other hand, respondents contend that after
receiving Ext.P1 objection from the petitioner, with notice to the
parties, the site was inspected in the presence of the petitioner. It
is stated that the 1st respondent found that the alternate
alignment suggested by the petitioner was not feasible and it was
therefore that Ext.P2 order was passed. It is also pointed out that
the order was communicated on 14/3/2008, the line was drawn on
15/3/2008 and the same was energised on that day itself.
5. Irrespective of the controversy regarding the date on
which the line in question was drawn and energised, from the
sketch of the site produced along with the counter affidavit filed
by respondents 2 to 4, it is seen that if the line is to be drawn
through the alternate route proposed by the petitioner, that will
cut across five plots of land belonging to different persons. On
the other hand, the alignment of the route through which the line
is now drawn passes only through the petitioner’s property and
that too far away from her house. Therefore, comparatively, the
alignment chosen in Ext.P2 order, is one causing least
WPC 9027/08
:3 :
inconvenience. If so, I do not think that this Court will be justified
in upsetting Ext.P2 order.
6. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has any genuine
grievance against the alignment through which the line is now
drawn, it will be open to her to move the authorities for shifting
the line, in which case, the said application will be duly considered
and orders will be passed in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp