IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 38484 of 2003(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THEKKAN MARY, D/O.LATE ALBERT PANAYAL, M.P.10/639, NEAR R.C. CHURCH, MADAI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE, SRI.SHABU VARGHESE. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), KANNUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PAYANGADI. 3. PUNNATHERIAN METELDA, PUNNATHERIAN HOUSE, M.P.X.12-A, MADAI, KANNUR DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 38484/2003-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR TALUK NO.L.DIS.1925/2002/(G2) DATED 09/04/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.1820/2002/A6 DATED NIL OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ROUTE, ALTERNATE ROUTE AND THE CONCERNED PREMISES. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38484 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the 1st respondent exercising his powers under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act removing the obstruction offered by the petitioner for drawing the electric line to the premises of the 3rd respondent. 2. The main ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was not heard is not a matter of dispute. If that be so, the order is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside on that ground and I do so. 3. At the time, when this writ petition was admitted, this court passed order dated 5/12/2003 staying the operation of Ext.P2 order. This order of stay continued since then. Therefore, in the meanwhile, if the line has already been drawn to the premises of the 3rd respondent, the proceedings shall not be continued for drawing the line as proposed. On the other hand, if line has not WPC No. 38484/03 :2 : been drawn so far, it will be open to the 1st respondent to hear the parties and pass fresh orders in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp