instance of the 1st respondent, on a complaint preferred by her regarding the state of the electric post that was standing by the side of her property. The Electricity Board submitted alternate proposals for drawing a fresh line through the routes aforementioned, and finally settled on the route plotted as 'HIJK' in the sketch. Since the re-alignment was at the instance of the 1st respondent, it was made clear in the order of the ADM that the additional cost incurred in connection with the re-alignment of the route, to supply electricity to the properties of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners would have to be borne by the 1st respondent. Inasmuch as in Ext.P2 order, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners, in particular, the 2nd and the 3rd petitioners, who will continue to receive the electric supply consequent to the realignment of the route, more so, when they have not been asked to pay any extra amount for the purposes of getting the electric connection through the alternate route, I am of the view that Ext.P2 order does not require any interference in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, initiated at the instance of the petitioners herein. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P2 order.
