J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 to the extent he is called upon to pay 50% of the expense that will be incurred for taking electricity connection for the agricultural use of the 3rd respondent.

2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that already a line was drawn through the petitioner's property, whereby power connection had been given to the petitioner as well as a 3rd party. When the 3rd respondent sought for drawing electric connection through his property, a proposal was made to draw line through the post which is erected on the petitioner's property. The petitioner objected to the same as it was found that drawing of two lines will cause substantial injury to him and the property will become useless. The Additional District Magistrate considered the matter and it was observed that such drawing of line would cause hardship to the petitioner and accordingly, a direction was issued to the KSEB to give a revised proposal. Accordingly, KSEB gave a revised proposal to shift the post in the petitioner's property to the boundary and thereafter draw both the lines i.e. to the 3rd respondent's property as well as to the 3rd party's property. However, th