MANIKKAM Vs. ASST ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 order issued by the Additional District Magistrate approving drawal of electric line for giving electric connection to additional respondents 4 and 5 on the ground that ADM does not have the authority to approve alternate route suggested by the parties in the course of proceedings before him.

(2.) I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for KSEB and counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. It is conceded that Ext. R3(a) sketch produced by respondents 2 and 3 reflect the true state of affairs. The house of the beneficiaries are adjoining properties located beneath the properties of respondents 2 and 3. The line originally proposed was through the boundary of the properties of respondents 2 and 3 and would have been drawn from D to C as shown in the sketch. However, respondents 2 and 3 raised objection stating that the drawal of line in the route proposed by the first respondent would lead to cutting of large number of yielding trees like coconut, jack tree, mango tree etc. Simultaneously, the third respondent expressed consent to permit the line to be drawn over the southern boundary of his property i.e. from A to B and then to draw the line through the property of beneficiaries through B and C. In fact, this requires drawal of line from post Y which stands installed in the property of the petitioner and three metres line will pass through the property of the petitioner. The ADM approved the alternate route suggested by respondents 2 and

(3.) IN this case I find the ADM has considered the original proposal and turned it down on the ground that the line in the approved route if drawn will lead to cutting of large number of useful trees in the properties of respondents 2 and 3. In fact, the route approved by him as stated in Ext. P4 will eventually lead to easy connections to large number of persons in the area who will be eventually applying for electric connection. Moreover, the approved line essentially passes through the property of the second respondent and of the beneficiaries themselves over which petitioner cannot have any grievance. The line as such passing over petitioner's property is only three metres against which petitioner cannot have any serious grievance. However, on going through the sketch produced before the Court, I find if the pole Y is shifted from petitioner's property to the boundary of his property and second respondent's property, one post proposed at A could probably be avoided and line could be drawn through the boundary of properties of the petitioner and the second respondent i.e. by shifting electric post Y to the boundary thereby avoiding post in the position A in the property of the second respondent. The WP is accordingly disposed of upholding Ext. P4 but with direction to the first respondent to shift the pole from Y to A and avoid one pole if possible and give connection to the beneficiaries without any delay.