IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2007 / 26TH SRAVANA 1929 WP(C).No. 8095 of 2004(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VENKALATTU NANU, S/O.LAKSHMANAN, COOLY, KELOTH HOUSE, KELALURE, P.O.MAMBARAM KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PINARAYI.P.O., KUTHUPARAMBA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR. 4. SRI.ANDY, DIVYA NIVAS, MAMBARAM.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.8095/2004 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DT. 22.1.2002 TOGETHER WITH THE PLAN. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADV.COMMISSIONER IN OS 289/03. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADV. CMMISSIONER IN OS 289/03. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 16.5.2003 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR'S REPORT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WITH NO.K.DIS.19986/2002/A6 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVER CONTAINING EXT.P7. TGS KURIAN JOSEPH J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8095 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 17th August, 2007. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by the District Magistrate in the matter of drawing of an electric line for giving connection to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, alternate routes are now available, which may not be expensive as the route now proposed. In view of the intervening developments, it is only appropriate that the third respondent considers the matter afresh to find out whether there is any alternate route available, which is less expensive. There will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 4, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment, in case no line has already been drawn for giving connection to the 4th respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. OP NO. 2 tgs