IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24285 of 2009(E)
1. ALIAS, AREESSERIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
3. SRI.VASTHYAN BOUSEENJU,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 24285 OF 2009 (E)
=====================
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Though the challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2,
an order passed by the 2nd respondent allowing the 1st respondent
to draw line as mentioned therein for supply of electrical energy
to the premises of the 3rd respondent, when the matter came up
for orders, all that the petitioner seeks is a direction to the 1st
respondent to consider the feasibility of drawing the line through
the eastern boundary of his property and as mentioned in Ext.P1
sketch, produced in this writ petition. According to the petitioner,
the line could be drawn through the alignment suggested by him
and that if it is so done, the damage if the line is drawn through
the middle of his property could be avoided and thus the damage
to his property could also be minimized.
2. Taking into account this, I feel it is only appropriate
that the suggestion made by the petitioner is also considered by
the 1st respondent before the line is drawn in implementation of
Ext.P2.
3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the
WPC 24285/09
:2 :
following directions.
(1) That on the production of a copy of this judgment, the
1st respondent shall examine the technical feasibility of drawing
the line through the eastern boundary of the property as shown
by the petitioner in Ext.P1 sketch produced in this writ petition.
(2) It is directed that if it is technically feasible and if the
beneficiary is willing to incur additional expenditure, the line will
be drawn as mentioned by him. It is also clarified that in case the
beneficiary is not willing and the petitioner is willing to bear
additional expenses, that will also be considered.
(3) It is made clear that if for any reason, the
aforementioned proposal is found to be not feasible or practical, it
will be open to the 1st respondent to draw the line as allowed in
Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent.
(4) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along
with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for
compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp