IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1527 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- HAJIRA.K.E., D/O.K.E.KUNHOYI, AGED 33 YEARS, HAJIRA MANZIL, POST PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.J.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MANKAVE, KOZHIKODE. 3. NADIRA, D/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED 35 YEARS, VALLIKUNNUPARAMBIL VEEDU, POST PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV . MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 1527 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent, permitting to draw electric line through the properties discussed therein, so as to provide electric connection to the third respondent, which is stated as causing utmost hardship, loss and injuries to the petitioner, particularly since the proposed line is passing through the pathway leading to the house of the petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alternate course suggested by the petitioner has not been considered by the first respondent while finalizing the proceedings vide Ext.P4. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board, on instruction, submits that the alternate course suggested by the petitioner is not at all feasible, as the line can be drawn W.P.(C) No. 1527 OF 2010 2 only after cutting the branches of the trees belonging to the petitioner himself and consent of another person is also required, since the property belonging to such person is also involved before the line reaches the property of the third respondent/beneficiary; as the particular post from which connection is to to be given to the third respondent, (if such course is approved) is situated in the property of the said person. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have any objection in cutting down the trees of the petitioner for implementation of the alternate course suggested by the petitioner. It is also asserted and undertaken before this Court that the petitioner will not claim any compensation on such an event. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the matter can be reconsidered by the first respondent. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits that the matter will be finalized as expeditiously as possible , of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. W.P.(C) No. 1527 OF 2010 3 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the third respondent, particularly since the line is yet to be drawn and connection is yet to be given and also in view of the limited relief that is being extended in this Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to re- consider the matter after hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner as well as the third respondent and to finalise the proceedings in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk