High Court Kerala High Court

Bert vs Additional Disrict Magistrate on 6 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Bert vs Additional Disrict Magistrate on 6 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18129 of 2007(G)


1. BERT S/O.FRANCIS, KURIYAPPILLY HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ADDITIONAL DISRICT MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. JOHNY, PULIKKAL HOUSE,

4. JOSEPH,

5. VINOBHAN,

6. KOCHUTHRESSIA,

7. MARIYAM, W/O DEVASSY,

8. A.R.THOMAS,

9. GABRIYEL,

10. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJU.S.NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :06/07/2007

 O R D E R
                           C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J

                    -----------------------------------------

                          W.P.(C) NO. 18129 of 2007

                    -----------------------------------------


                    Dated this the 6th     day  of  July,  2007



                                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order authorising drawal of

electric line through his property to give domestic connection to one

Sri.A.R.Thomas. The case of the petitioner is that the original proposal

was to draw line through somebody else’s property and the same was

unnecessarily dropped and the electric line was later proposed over his

property. KSEB has produced a sketch which shows the original line

proposed by it and the line presently approved by the Additional

District Magistrate. It is seen from ADM’s order and the sketch that the

earlier proposal was abandoned because the said line was passing very

close to the house of another person. It is dangerous to retain live

electric line very close to a house which is stated to be less than two

metres. On the other hand the line presently approved is over the

boundary of the petitioner’s property which is 39 cents of land.

Therefore the line approved by the Additional Magistrate calls for no

interference. However, I make it clear that the line should be drawn on

the extreme boundary of the petitioner’s property if required, after

W.P.(C)No. 18129/2007 :2:

shifting the post on the road side to the edge of petitioner’s property

so that the line is drawn exactly over the boundary which will not

cause much inconvenience to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,

JUDGE

css/

W.P.(C)No. 18129/2007 :3: