IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 35069 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FASEELA VATTAMKANDATHIL W/O.MUHAMMED RAFI, MELEPURATH VEEDU, CHEMMALA, CHREMMALASSERY PO. PULAMANTHOL, KULATHUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MALAPPURAM OFFICE OF THE ADM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB,PULAMANTHOL, MALAPPURAM. 3. P.MUHAMMED RAFI, CHEMMALASSERY, PULAMANTHOL , KULATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ( REP. BY P/A. HOLDER MELEPURATH SAIDALI HAJI, RESIDING AT .-- DO.---DO.---) ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.P.SAMSUDIN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.35069/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE DT 22.11.07. P2 COPY OF APPLICATION DT 6.2.08. P3 COPY OF RECEIPT DT 3.4.08. P4 COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY R3. P5 COPY OF ORDER DT 13.8.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35069 OF 2008 Y ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. Petitioner is the wife of the 3rd respondent. By the impugned order, the Magistrate has rejected the petitioner's case. Petitioner sought electric connection. Apparently, the 3rd respondent objected. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that actually the petition was filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer. After noticing the fact that the Magistrate can deal with the petition received from the Assistant Executive Engineer, it is stated that the Assistant Executive Engineer, who is the petitioner, has not raised any objection to be considered under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The 3rd respondent has admittedly raised an objection for drawing of the line. This is a matter which requires to be considered by the Magistrate under section 16. 2. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed. The 1st respondent will reconsider the matter in accordance with law with an opportunity of hearing to WPC.35069/08 : 2 : the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent. To facilitate an early disposal of the matter, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent or their representatives and the 2nd respondent shall be present before the 1st respondent on 22.4.2009 at 11 am. The 1st respondent shall proceed to hear them and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law within three weeks from 22.4.2009. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE