KORU, S/O.RAVUNNI Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P6 order passed by the second respondent granting permission to draw electricity line under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is under challenge in this writ petition. A major portion of the route now decided - QEBC - is a pathway beyond the property of the petitioners and therefore there cannot be any grievance. The complaint is with regard to the drawing of electricity supply line from Q to M crossing the property of the petitioners and other co-owners.

(2.) THE first respondent had in fact suggested the route AMNOPQ which is the other portion of the pathway used by parties. But then NOPQ is a curve which will necessitate the erection of numerous posts and it may perhaps impede the pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It was under the circumstances did the second respondent suggest drawing of electricity supply line along AMQ to further draw along EBC through the pathway.

(3.) THE route suggested by the petitioners along DEBC has been turned down by the second respondent for justifiable reasons since the same is along the property of the fourth respondent. The major portion of the route now decided by the second respondent is a pathway and only a small portion of the property between posts N and Q would be affected by the course suggested by the Kerala State Electricity Board.