The petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion in WP(C) No.31745/2013. Apprehension expressed in the said writ petition was that, an electric post situated in the property of the 3rd respondent will be shifted to a narrow pathway, which is being used by the petitioner. Standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submitted that there was no application received seeking for shifting of the electric post in question and that shifting of the electric post to the pathway is not feasible. Recording such submissions, the said writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment, observing that no grievance survives for the petitioner. 2. After Ext.P2 judgment the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent stating that shifting of post No.195/2A from the existing position will cause inconvenience to the local people, and it will be violative of Ext.P2 judgment. It is evident from Exts.P3 and P4 that the said compliant was again considered by the 1st respondent after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A report from the Assistant Engineer of the Electrical Section concerned was obtained, wherein it is intimated that the electric post bearing No.195/2A will not be shifted from the present position. It was reported that what is proposed is only a shifting of the alignment of the electric line crossing through property of the 3rd respondent by erecting a 'Cross Arm', so that the alignment will be shifted above the pathway in question. The 1st respondent found that, passing of the electric line (overhead line) above the pathway will not cause any inconvenience to its usage and it will not cause any prejudice to anybody using the pathway. Therefore it is observed that the complaint does not deserve any consideration. It is challenging Ext.P4, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Contention of the petitioner seems to be that the 1st respondent has no power to order shifting of the line from the property of one person to the property of another or to a public pathway and that shifting can be permissible only within the same property, as settled through various precedents of this court. But here it is evident that, only a shifting of the alignment of the overhead line is permitted, that too over a public pathway. There is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the records to hold that, by issuing the impugned order the 1st respondent had exercised jurisdiction vested under Section 17(1) in an illegal or erroneous manner. This is especially because the petitioner could not prove any inconvenience or prejudice caused by way of the shifting permitted. Hence this court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves no merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the electric connection given to respondents 3 & 4 is illegal in view of the fact that the building in question is an unauthorised construction and the Grama Panchayat had already initiated steps directing demolition of the construction. However, such an issue is not the subject matter of this writ petition. If the petitioner is legally entitled to challenge any actions in this regard, it will be left open to him to approach the appropriate authority.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to liberty as mentioned above.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn