IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15455 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KUNJUMONY MADHAVAN, KIZHAKKEMURY, CHEPPANAM, PANAGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SRI.E.RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B.,TRIPUNITHURA. 3. MR. T.A.PADMANABHAN, THITTAYIL HOUSE, CHEPPANANM,PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. MR. RAJAPPAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEPPANANM, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. R3 BY ADVS.SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, SRI.K.A.ANISH. R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.15455 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness of Ext.P1 passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the electric line has been ordered to be drawn through the property of the petitioner for supplying power to the premises of the 3rd and 4th respondents. 2. Main ground raised in the writ petition is that the 'decision making process' conducted by the 1st respondent is wrong and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the steps to draw the electric line through the property of the petitioner having only an extent of 3 cents in the year 2004, was objected by the petitioner. Pursuant to the objection raised, the matter was referred by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. On such reference, the matter was heard twice on 2.11.2004 and on 25.12.2004. Thereafter, it was finally heard on 16.5.2006 by another officer. During the course of the said hearing, the contention of the petitioner was specifically pointed out, W.P.(C). NO.15455 OF 2010 2 also, referring to the alternate routes available. Still, nothing was heard for a period of 3 years and on 30.7.2009, the then officer, who held the office of the 1st respondent, conducted a site inspection. It was much thereafter, Ext.P1 order dated 30.4.2010 was passed; that too, by yet another officer, holding that, on site inspection, the route proposed by the 2nd respondent was found as the feasible one and that the alternate route suggested was not all feasible, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits, with reference to the sketch produced, that the contention of the petitioner is not correct or sustainable and that the route finalised by the 1st respondent, as proposed by Board, is the most feasible and the least expensive one. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the actual facts and figures have been duly discussed and analysed by the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P1 order which is in conformity with the W.P.(C). NO.15455 OF 2010 3 statutory prescription and not assailable under any circumstances. The learned counsel appearing for the beneficiaries 3rd and 4th respondents submits that petitioner does not have any legal stand to object drawing of electric line through the existing public way along the southern side of the property of the petitioner. Though the petitioner is stated as remitting the tax in respect of the pathway, it is stated as being used by the general public. The learned counsel further submits that there was a dispute with regard to the extension of the path way through the property of a beneficiary, which was the subject matter of Ext.R1 and R2 (plaint and decree in OS 1056 of 1999,Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam), whereby the suit was partly allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not a party to the above suit; however, asserting that the crucial question to be considered is whether there is proper application of mind on the part of 1st respondent while passing Ext.P1, more so,when the final hearing was held four years ago, on 16.5.2006. The alleged W.P.(C). NO.15455 OF 2010 4 site inspection was conducted on 30.7.2007 and Ext.P1 order was passed on 30.4.2010, that too by different officers and different points of time. 6. Going by sequence of events and also considering the fact that cause of action originated in the year 2004, was finalised only in the year 2010, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter by conducting a site inspection and hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4. The proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law, 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 accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns