IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10645 of 2007(P)
1. DR.V.V.PYARELAL, SARASWATHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
4. THANKAMMA K.V., KATTUNILATH,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
For Respondent :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :06/03/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO. 10645 OF 2007
............................................
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009
JUDGMENT
This matter relates to a proceedings under Section 16(1) of
Telegraph Act. The petitioner challenges the order of the
Additional District Magistrate.
2. Following different earlier orders, the Electricity Board
has placed on record a statement dated 17.2.2009 producing
Ext.R2(c) sketch. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the
Electrical Sub Divisional, Cherthala who has prepared Ext.R2(c) is
also present.
3. After hearing the parties, I do not find any conflict or
controversy as to the correctness of the contents of Ext.R2(c).
Therefore the issues could be settled once for all with reference
to that sketch.
4. The Board proposed the route `ABC’ to provide energy
to the fourth respondent, and applicant whose dwelling house is
shown as `C’ in Ext.R2(c). The Assistant District Magistrate
approved that proposal and overruled the objections, however,
WPC 10645/2007 2
without stating too many reasons. During the course of this
case, the Board has placed a proposal, an alternate one, which is
`AEDC’. If that proposal is accepted, the line would go farther to
the boundary of the petitioner’s property though it may be nearer
to the property of one Vijayan, who it appears, would not be
disturbed by that alignment. Another alternate route which is
suggested by the petitioner and noted by the Assistant Executive
Engineer is the second alternate proposal, `XYC’. That route is
only 58 metres long, but it calls for a pole in a marshy land,
which is water logged and the line has to be drawn where there
are other dwelling houses, including that of Pappachan and
Mathai. While that aligment may not touch those lands, I do not
deem it advisable to compel the Board to draw the line through
alignment `XYC’ because of the proximity of the dwelling house
to the marshy land and the chances of very many unfortunate
situations, which may arise in the case of any eventuality.
5. Within the parameters of the jurisdiction under Article
226, all that needs to be done, as of now, is to provide the
petitioner the opportunity to have the line refixed as `AEDC’. It
also needs to be noticed that Ext.P3 order was issued by
WPC 10645/2007 3
Additional District Magistrate on 8.3.2007 and the fourth
respondent had applied for energy in 2005. Therefore even
without making any remand of the matter to the Additional
District Magistrate, in view of the fact situation noticed above, it
is ordered that the decision of the Additional District Magistrate
will stand modulated by what is stated herein and the alignment
will be `AEDC’. The Kerala State Electricity Board authorities
will take immediate action to provide the said alignment to
ensure prompt supply of energy to the fourth respondent.
Writ petition ordered accordingly. Let line be energised at
the earliest from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
lgk/9/3