IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1071 of 2010()
1. HAJIRA.K.E. D/O.K.E.KUNHOYI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. NADIRA, W/O. KUNJU, AGED 35 YEARS,
4. K.E.MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHU HAJI, AGED 50
For Petitioner :SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :05/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
W.A.No. 1071 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rehim, J.
Appellant is the writ petitioner, who was unsuccessful in his
challenge against Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent.
Matter pertains to drawing of electric line for providing domestic
connection to the 3rd respondent. This is the second round of
litigation before this Court at the instance of the petitioner.
Earlier, Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent was
challenged in writ petition W.P.(C) No. 1527/2010. This Court
relegated the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration,
particularly for considering feasibility of the alternate route
suggested by the petitioner. The matter was considered
elaborately by the first respondent, who found that drawing of
line through the route suggested by the KSEB is the most
feasible and the same will not cause much prejudice to the
petitioner, because substantial portion of the same passes
through a pathway leading to the property of the third
respondent. The existence of such a pathway as well as the
W.A. No.1071/2010 2
right of third respondent over that pathway is not disputed by
the petitioner. On the other hand, contention is that the third
respondent is not having right over the full extent of the route
through which the line is proposed. According to the petitioner,
some portion of the proposed route will cut across her property.
The alternate route suggested by the petitioner is to draw the line
from a post situated in the 4th respondent’s property. According
to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has no serious objection for
drawing line through such a route. But the 4th respondent
raised written objections before the authority concerned.
Therefore, the first respondent observed that, when there is a
clear cut pathway leading to the property of the third respondent,
there is no question of the line being drawn through property of
somebody else. It is further observed that, in fact there require
no concession from the petitioner to draw line through such a
pathway.
2. Learned single Judge observed that, since very
existence of the pathway is not in dispute, the alternate route
suggested by the petitioner do not deserve consideration. It is
further observed that the third respondent has applied for
W.A. No.1071/2010 3
connection year’s back and in fact the original application was
submitted by father of the third respondent, who died
subsequently and that the third respondent is waiting for electric
connection to her house since the last so many years.
3. Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, objection raised by the 4th respondent with
respect to drawing of line through the alternate route, is not
specific and serious. We also heard Sri.Mohana Kannan, learned
counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent as well as Sri.Binoy
Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. Comparative feasibility regarding different routes for
drawing an electric line, is a matter which is to be decided by
the concerned authority taking into consideration of various
factual matters prevailing at the location. Unless serious error
is pointed out with respect to the decision taken or any act of
malafides on the part of such authority is convincingly proved,
this Court may not be justified in interfering with such a
decision. In the case at hand, it has come out that the line is
proposed to be drawn substantially through a pathway upon
which the beneficiary has got a right. Under such
W.A. No.1071/2010 4
circumstances, we do not find any illegality or infirmity with the
conclusions arrived by the learned singe Judge in upholding the
decision taken by the first respondent. There is no valid ground
raised in the appeal warranting interference. Accordingly, the
appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk