The petitioner, who is in possession of 45 cents of land in Vettikattiri Village in Pandikkad Grama Panchayat has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 03/11/2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram, the 3rd respondent herein, in exercise of his powers under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by which the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB Electrical Sub Division, Perinthalmanna, the 2nd respondent herein has been accorded sanction to draw electric line to the house of the 4th respondent by erecting two electric posts, one to the North of the existing post 'A' (shown in the Tahsildar's sketch) and another one 'B' (shown in the KSEB's sketch) at a convenient spot on the Northern boundary of the pathway. 2. According to the Writ Petitioner, when the 3rd respondent had taken steps to draw electric line to the newly constructed house of the 4th respondent through the petitioner's property he had objected to the same stating that alternate routes are available to draw the electric line. Though the alternate route suggested by the petitioner is the shortest and least expensive route for giving electric connection to the building of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P4 order.
3. Ext.P4 order was passed on 03/11/2010, which according to the petitioner was communicated to him only on 06/11/2010. But the 1st and 2nd respondents erected the post on 06/11/2010 itself and the line was drawn on 07/11/2010. This Writ Petition was thereafter filed on 12/11/2010.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition and perused the documents on record including Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent.
5. The 2nd respondent moved Ext.P1 application before the 3rd respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act seeking permission of the District Magistrate to draw electric line over the petitioner's property in order to give power supply to the newly constructed residential building of the 4th respondent. On receipt of notice from the District Magistrate, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objection suggesting alternate routes and also pointing out that O.S.No.99 of 2010 filed by him before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri, against the 4th respondent and others residing on the side of his property against trespass is pending consideration and the Munsiff Court has already granted injunction against the 4th respondent and others. Therefore, the present proposal to draw electric line through the petitioner's property is only to make a claim in support of their defence. Ext.P3 is the sketch produced by the petitioner suggesting alternate routes.
6. The 3rd respondent after considering the objection raised by the petitioner passed Ext.P4 order concluding that the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner leads to obtaining consent from two other parties. On receipt of notice from the District Magistrate they objected drawing of electric line through their property as construction of a building is already going on in the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. The Tahsildar submitted a report with sketch suggesting three different routes to draw electric line, one among them being the route proposed by the 2nd respondent and the other two routes being those suggested by the petitioner in Ext.P2 objection. The proposals made by the Tahsildar through the two routes proposed by the petitioner was objected to by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the system of providing underground cable connection does not exist at present and even if it can be considered in any manner it can be drawn only through the consumer's property. At the time of hearing, the officials of the KSEB made a suggestion to erect two electric posts, one to the North of the existing post 'A' (shown in the Tahsildar's sketch) near to the pathway and another one 'B' (shown in the KSEB's sketch) on the Northern boundary of the above said pathway and to draw a service wire from post 'B'.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 3rd respondent came to the conclusion that the route suggested by the 2nd respondent is one causing least inconvenience to the petitioner. It was in such circumstances, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P4 granted permission to the 2nd respondent to draw electric line to the house of the 4th respondent through the said route.
8. I find absolutely no illegality or irregularity in Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent. At any rate the reasoning of the 3rd respondent in Ext.P4 is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, I find absolutely no grounds to interfere with Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj