P.Khader v. The Asst.Executive Engineer & Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 19361 WP(C).No. 33961 of 2011 (U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
-------------------------- P.KHADER, S/O.UNNIMOIDEEN, PANTHAPADAN HOUSE, CHEMBOTHUMPOYIL, VELLUMBRAM KARAD.P.O., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B, WANDOOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.679 328.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676 505.
3. VAZHADAN RADHAMANI, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, CHEMBOTHUMPOYIL, VELLABRAM KARAD.P.O., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.679 339. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. FAZIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 33961 of 2011 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 :
COPY OF THE REVENUE TAX RECEIPTS P2 :
COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER P3 :
COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER P4 :
COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT P5 :
COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER P6:
COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 09.12.2011 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- EXT. R1(a) COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE
V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 33961 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 06th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
Ext. P6 order according permission to draw electricity supply line is impugned. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit with Ext. R1(a) plan. The same reflects that the proposed route is the shortest extending to 32 metres and viable. The alternative route proposed by the petitioner is circuitous and extends to 103 metres. Moreover it has to cross a canal to complete a semi-circle.
2.
I am satisfied with the route proposed 'ABC' is the shortest and validly approved by the second respondent. The alternative route proposed 'DEFGHJ' is obviously circuitous. The major portion of the proposed route is along the boundary of the property of the petitioner only. Moreover the first respondent assures that only a weatherproof line will be drawn through the route 'ABC'.
3.
I do not find any infirmity in Ext. P6 order warranting interference at my hands. All the necessary inputs
W.P.(C). NO. 33961 OF 2011 2 have been relied on to accord permission to draw the electricity supply line.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE