The petitioner objected drawing of electric line through his property to the residential house of the 5th respondent. On the basis of the objection raised, the matter was referred for adjudication by the 3rd respondent, as contemplated under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003. The 3rd respondent, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, the 4th respondent and others, had passed Ext.P5 order permitting drawing of the line through the boundary of the petitioner's property to an extent of 25 meters. It is aggrieved by Ext.P5 this writ petition is filed. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that line can be drawn to the 4th respondent's residence without crossing any private property through a pathway. It is argued that the 3rd respondent had failed to consider the alternate route suggested. But on a perusal of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent it is revealed that the alternate route suggested was considered and rejected on the finding that it requires drawing of 90 meter overhead line and erection of 4 posts. Apart from that Rubber trees standing on the side of the route is to be cut and removed. Wheras it is found that the route now permitted require drawing of only 25 meters overhead line through the boundary of the petitioner's property and 25 meters weather proof wire through the property of 4th respondent. Since the 3rd respondent had considered the comparative feasibility of both the routes and found that the alternate route suggested is more lengthy and expensive, this court find no ground to interfere with the findings on the factual aspects, which cannot be reconsidered by this court, unless there is some convincing materials produced to prove otherwise.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the 3rd respondent had permitted drawing of line only through the boundary to the possible extent and shifting of the post standing in the property of the petitioner was directed if it is possible. According to the petitioner, the line if drawn as ordered in Ext.P5 will necessitate cutting and removal of rubber trees standing in the property of the petitioner. But the report of the Tahsildar obtained by the 3rd respondent indicate otherwise. However this court is of the opinion that a direction to the 1st respondent to draw the line keeping the extreme boundary of the petitioner's property will serve the interest of justice.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, while declining interference with respect to Ext.P5 order, the 1st respondent is directed to shift the existing post situated in the petitioner's property to the extreme boundary and to draw the line through the extreme boundary without causing damage to any of the standing trees or crops, to the possible extent.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/