IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15540 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KUNJUKUNJU.R, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VYALA.P.O, PUTHUSERRY BHAGOM. 2. BHASKARAN.R, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VYALA.P.O, PUTHUSERRY BHAGOM. 3. ANIL.B, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VYALA.P.O, PUTHUSERRY BHAGOM. BY ADV. MR. A.K.ALEX RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, EZHAMKULAM, PAROKODE.P.O. 4. C.K.GOPALAN, KAPPARA VEEDU, VYALA.P.O, PUTHUSERRY BHAGOM, ADOOR TALUK. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL R2 BY ADV. MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15540 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved of Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent, the Additional District Magistrate, ordering the electric line to be drawn through the property of the petitioners, so as to give power supply to the premises belonging to the 4th respondent, without considering the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by them. In spite of the service of notice on admission to the 4th respondent by speed post, the said respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court to answer the averments raised in the Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, who submits that the objection raised by the petitioners were very much considered by the first respondent who conducted a spot inspection as well, before passing Ext.P3 order. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits that, the route proposed by the Board has been accepted, since it was the most feasible one and that Ext.P3 passed by the first respondent does not call for any interference. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the objections raised by the petitioners, particularly with reference to W.P. (C) No. 15540 of 2010 : 2 : the existence of alternate route through the 'pachayath road 'have very much been taken note by the first respondent in the opening paragraph of Ext.P3. But, there is absolutely no discussion or further reference as to the said route and whether the same is feasible or not is not mentioned in the impugned order, though the first respondent has conducted a spot inspection on 25.3.2010. 4. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made from the part of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent with specific reference to the alternate route i.e. through the Panchayath road mentioned in Ext.P3 itself. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned and also after conducting a spot inspection with prior notice to all concerned, so as to evaluate the actual facts and circumstances, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd