JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J:

The appellant was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge challenging the drawing of an electrical line through his southern boundary to provide power connection to the 3rd respondent.

2. The sketch is available in Annexure R2(a), as produced by the 2nd respondent. The property of the 5th respondent and the 3rd respondent lies to the south of the appellant's property. A portion of the southern boundary of the appellant is the northern boundary of the 3rd respondent and the balance portion is the northern boundary of the 5th respondent. We have to notice that the 5th respondent is no more and no steps have been taken to implead the legal heirs. Even then, we are of the opinion that the Writ Appeal itself can be disposed of.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, respondents 3 and 4 as also the Standing Counsel for the Board.

4. The learned Single Judge found that the authorities below under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1986 have found the route through which the line to be drawn is the most feasible one. There was nothing stated by the appellant to controvert the same. As we see from the impugned judgment, at the hearing stage a submission w