1. The petitioners are persons, who own properties on either side of the Ponmalath Road in Muthoor, Thiruvalla, which leads to a school under the management of the 4th respondent. Electric supply to the properties of the petitioners as well as the school is provided through a Low Tension (LT) connection, the lines of which are drawn through poles erected along the Ponmalath Road. The 4th respondent, who currently avails the electric connection to a connected load of 28 KW, submitted an application before the 2nd respondent seeking an additional power allocation to the extent of 64 KW. The requirement of the 4th respondent necessitated the conversion of his existing power supply from Low Tension (LT) to High Tension (HT) and the 2nd respondent proposed the said supply by dismantling the existing poles in the Ponmalath Road and replacing it with HT poles through which, not only the LT lines supplying power to the petitioners, but also an HT line supplying power to the 4th respondent, would be drawn.

2. The petitioners objected to the drawing of the lines in the above manner and submitted their objections to the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, along with their suggestion of two alternate routes through which the lines could be drawn. The objections submitted by the petitioners were forwarded to the 3rd respondent for his consideration in accordance with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The 2nd respondent also submitted an application before the 3rd respondent, on 16.08.2016, seeking a rejection of the objections submitted by the petitioners and a permission to draw the lines as proposed by him.

3. The 3rd respondent, who had to exercise his discretion under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act called for a report from the Village Officer, who suggested three alternate routes for drawing the line including the one proposed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, a report was also called from the Tahsildar, who appears to have suggested, based on his understanding of the Village Officers report, that if the petitioners were convinced about the security aspects regarding the lines, they would not seriously object to the proposal of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent, thereafter, heard the petitioners, the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent, and after considering the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and the 2nd respondent, passed Ext.P16 order granting permission to the 1st respondent Board to draw the lines through the route proposed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners impugn Ext.P16 order in this writ petition on the following grounds, namely,

i. That the 3rd respondent while passing Ext.16 order, relied on the report of the Tahsildar which had misinterpreted the report of the Village Officer that suggested that there were other feasible routes for drawing the lines which would have caused less inconvenience to persons in the locality.

ii. That the drawing of an HT line through the proposed route would prejudice the rights of the petitioners as regards future constructions on their property, as the existing building rules contemplated the maintenance of minimum distance requirements while effecting constructions in the vicinity of HT lines. The present proposal, they contend, would prejudicially affect their right to a free use of their property.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent wherein reliance is placed on a report of the Deputy Chief Engineer as also the 2nd respondent, as regards the technical feasibility of the proposed route, to point out that it was on finding that the proposed line would not cross over any private property, and that there was no reason to doubt the view expressed by the experts, that the permission was granted to the 1st respondent Board to draw the lines in the manner proposed. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, while supporting the decision of the 3rd respondent, a copy of the report of the 2nd respondent that was submitted to the 3