VENUKUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugn Exhibit P3 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate [for brevity "ADM"]. By that order the most feasible route was given up and a circuitous route, with enormous expenditure, was approved, is the grievance.

(2.) The sketch of the property is seen at Exhibit P1. The alternate routes under consideration were FGH, ADE and ABCE; the former among which is the most feasible one even according to the impugned order. When the petitioner applied for electric connection; to the north-east of the petitioner's property, a post was erected [shown as "G"] drawing line from another post lying to the east of the said post [shown as "F"]. The 3rd respondent is the owner on the eastern boundary of the property of one Ramachandran Pillai [consumer No.9333], which property lies to the east of the petitioner's property. There was also existing a line to Ramachandran Pillai's property from post 'F'.

(3.) The 3rd respondent objected to the existing line from post 'F' on the ground that he consented to drawing of the line, over his property on the mistaken assumption as to the said post having been erected inside the property of Ramachandran Pillai. The said line was one existing for 20 years as is seen from the impugned order and the objection was raised only on the petitioner requesting a line to be drawn from the post 'F'. The allegation of the 3rd respondent was that the petitioner had consented to draw a line through his property to post 'F' and then to Ramachandran Pillai; on the belief that the post was in the latter's property and later it was realized that it was erected in his own property. The 3rd respondent however did not apply for any shifting of line before the Board, but approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (South), Kottarakkara [for brevity "CGRF"]; which passed Exhibit R3(a) order.