Grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the course adopted by the first respondent/Addl. District Magistrate by permitting the electric line to be drawn as given in Ext.P3 order. The case of the petitioner is that two proposals were submitted by the Electricity Board and absolutely without any discussion, the first respondent/ADM approved the second proposal for causing the line to be drawn, so as to provide power supply to the residential building of the petitioner, which invites unnecessary expenditure including the necessity to plant two posts. According to the petitioner, if the first proposal was adopted, the line could have been drawn from the post ST.1B/3 to an extent of 27 metres of weather proof line. Instead of this, since the second course is adopted, it will involve drawing of line to an extent of 42 metres overhead line and 25 metres weather proof line, besides the necessity to install two posts which unnecessarily is causing increase in the cost and burden. This made the petitioner to challenge the proceedings by way of this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board and W.P.(C)No.26915 OF 2014 2 the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent.
3. The learned Standing Counsel points out that the first proposal submitted by the Board involves 'properties crossing', as the line has to pass through properties of different persons, who raised objections in this regard. In the case of the second proposal, it does not require any 'property crossing' as the line is to be drawn through a pathway, which is being used by general public, to have access to their properties. It was in the said circumstance, that feasibility of the said proposal was accepted and approved by the first respondent vide Ext.P3.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is nothing arbitrary or illegal with regard to finalisation of the proceedings by the first respondent, by passing Ext.P3. It does not call for interference by this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction. That apart, Ext.P3 order was passed as early as in the year 2011 and the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court only now, i.e. after three years. In the said circumstance, interference is declined. However, it is made clear that, if the petitioner is still desirous to have electricity connection and if any hurdles are there by virtue of passage of time with regard to W.P.(C)No.26915 OF 2014 3 the second proposal, it is open for the respondent Board to consider whether any deviation is necessary and if so, to proceed with further steps with liberty to all the parties concerned for ventilating their grievance.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that if the line is drawn through the pathway, that will virtually reduce the width of the pathway causing hindrance to access. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that, if the petitioner is ready and willing to bear the expenditure for laying underground cable, expenditure of which will be substantial, such an alternative can be considered, subject to other feasibility aspects. In the said circumstance, such a course is left open to be considered, if so mooted from the part of the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk