High Court of KeralaWP(C)/6440/2015dismissed

Lathika v. Kerala State Electricity Board

2015-03-05Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/14TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6440 of 2015 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ LATHIKA, ALUMMOODU, ANJENJO P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS:

----------------------

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF ASST EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUBDIVISION, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

4. VAIDEKI .P., ALUMMOODU, ANJENJO P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 6440 of 2015 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17.12.14.

EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 6440 OF 2015 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

Only a weather proof wire of length 3 metres along the boundary of the property of the petitioner is being drawn to provide electricity connection to the fourth respondent. The alternate route suggested crosses the property of two others and is circuitous necessitating an overhead line of length 40 metres. 2.

All the necessary inputs have been taken into consideration by the third respondent in according sanction in terms of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. I am not inclined to hold that Ext.P3 order passed by the third respondent is in any way vitiated warranting interference in this writ jurisdiction.

The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd