IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35131 of 2009(J)
1. N.CHANDRAN ALIAS AYYAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. P.C.MOOSA, PUTHUKADICHOLA HOUSE,
4. DASAN, PALATHULLIYIL HOUSE,
5. SREEDEVI, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :16/12/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 35131 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 16th December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the owner of a property through which the 2nd
respondent proposes to draw electricity line for giving electricity
connection to the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, a more
feasible alternate route is available through which line can be drawn.
After considering the contentions of the parties involved, the
Additional District Magistrate has passed Ext. P2 order under Section
16(1) of the Indian Telephone Act permitting the 2nd respondent to
draw line through the route proposed by him. While doing so, the
Additional District Magistrate found that the line is to be drawn
through the side of the property of the petitioner and for the same, no
trees are to be cut. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 order.
2. Originally, the petitioner contended that if the line is
permitted to be drawn through the petitioner’s property, several
rubber trees of the petitioner are to be cut. Therefore, on 7-12-2009,
I passed the following order:
“The only contention of the petitioner is that if the line is to
be drawn through the route now permitted by the Additional
District Magistrate several rubber trees are to be cut. From the
order, I find that the Additional District Magistrate has held that
no trees need be cut if the line is drawn through the proposed
route. Standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits that even
if trees are to be cut, the proposed route is the most feasible
route. But, he seeks time to obtain instructions as to whether any
trees need be cut for drawing line through the proposed route.”
3. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned standing
counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that no tree
of the petitioner would be cut and removed but only branches of
rubber trees would be cut.
4. I have heard counsel on both sides.
W.P.C. No. 35131/09 -: 2 :-
5. Ext. P 2 order reads thus:
“Taking into consideration of all the aspects involved in the
case, I have come to the conclusion that there is not much
hardship to Sri. N. Chandran, Nedumannil House, Muthukad,
Mankurissi, Vazhampuram, Karakurissi, Mannarkkad, Palakkad,
the respondent for providing electric connection to the residence
of Smt. Sreedevi, the Prospective Consumer by drawing the
electrical line through the side of the property of Sri. Chandran,
the route proposed as per the sketch, by the the petitioner and it
will promote better relationship between the parties. In the
circumstances, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub
Division, K.S.E.B., Mannarkad, Palakkad is permitted to exercise
the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 to draw the electric line through the side of the
property of Sri. Chandran, the route proposed and topo sketch
filed by the petitioner for providing the electric connection to the
residence of Smt. Sreedevi, W/o. Radhakrishnan, Thachanamkode
House, Vazhampuram, Karakurissi, Mannarkkad, Palakkad the
Prospective Consumer for domestic purpose. The petitioner should
ensure minimum inconvenience to the respondent while drawing
the electric line. If any loss has been caused to the respondent by
drawing the line, the respondent can move before the appropriate
authority under Section 16(4) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.”
I am of opinion that the Additional District Magistrate has considered
every aspect of the matter and has given cogent reasons for accepting
the route suggested by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not find
any infirmity in the said order so as to interfere with the same in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.