IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1219 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MALATHI R. NAYAK, W/O.B.R. NAYAK, BELLIPADY HOUE, DELAMPADY VILLAGE, PANJIKKAL.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B, CHERKALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. K. NARAYANA BHAT, S/O. K. KESAVA BHAT, KAJE HOUSE, HOLCKARA, PANJIKKAL.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 R4 BY SMT. P. VANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO.1219 OF 2009 T -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th January, 2009 JUDGMENT This case, though coming up for admission, by consent of the parties, is being disposed of. 2. I heard Shri M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned standing counsel, as also Smt. P. Vani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent. 3. This is the second round of litigation arising from the permission granted to draw the electric line across the property of the petitioner for giving connection to the fourth respondent. The earlier round culminated in Ext.P3 Judgment. In Ext.P3 Judgment, this Court has, inter alia, taken the following view: “Ext.P2 is quashed and the first respondent will take up the matter. In view of the fact that it is being remitted back, the petitioner, the third respondent and the fourth respondent will appear before the first respondent on 17.11.2008 at 11 AM WPC.1219/09 T 2 before the first respondent. The first respondent will thereafter consider the matter in the light of the observations made in this Judgment. He may also conduct a site inspection. Thereafter, he will consider whether the original alternate route referred to in Ext.P2 or the route suggested by the party respondent is more feasible and less expensive, and pass appropriate orders. Appropriate orders as aforesaid shall be passed within a period of three weeks from 17.11.2008.” 4. Pursuant to that, purportedly after a site inspection, Ext.P4 order is passed which is impugned before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this Court's Judgment has not been observed by the Officer. It is pointed out that this Court had directed to consider the original alternate route as also the alternate route suggested by the party respondent. It is pointed out that they were not considered. Of course, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would point out that if the original route suggested by the petitioner is adopted, power allocation may not be forthcoming. But, nothing is mentioned in the order as such. In the light of this, I feel that Ext.P4 cannot WPC.1219/09 T 3 be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed and the matter will be redone by the first respondent. In view of the fact that the matter is pending for some time, the petitioner and the fourth respondent or their representatives as also the representative of the third respondent shall be present before the first respondent on 22.01.2009 at 11 AM. The first respondent will proceed to consider the matter in the light of the directions contained in Ext.P3 Judgment and take a decision in the matter within a period of ten days from 22.01.2009. It is made clear that no notice need be issued to the petitioner or respondents 3 and 4. It is also made clear that there need not be any site inspection. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge