IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19354 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY.K.K, W/O.MANOHARAN, 'MAMSHA', VENGERI, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, KARAPARAMBU. 3. CHANDUKUTTY.A.C,AMMOTTUPOYIL, ERUVALLUR.P.O, CHELANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SMT.S.SREEJA FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.19354/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1&P1(A) COPY OF PETITION AND SKETCH DT 19.7.2007 FILED BY R2 BEFORE R1. P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY R1 DT 16.4.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 19354 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Admittedly, two routes were suggested for giving connection to the 3rd respondent (beneficiary). The Additional District Magistrate has found that connection can be given by drawing the line from the property of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel made available a sketch at present. The line is proposed to be drawn from the point 'B1' to 'E'. There is a post at the point 'B1' which is presently located in the property of the petitioner. This is the proposal which is accepted. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that line can be drawn as 'ACDE'. Learned counsel for the beneficiary also would submit that the beneficiary has no objection if line is drawn through the said route. The original proposal(EDFGHIJ) is stated to be very lengthy route. It is stated WPC.19354/08 : 2 : that the beneficiary has already remitted the amount for the said route. In view of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent beneficiary have no objection in drawing line through ACDE, I feel that the matter can be reconsidered. But, the learned standing counsel points out that if the proposal ACDE is accepted, there will be property crossing of somebody else. If there is any property crossing of somebody else, then, the said proposal need not be accepted and the present proposal can be accepted. The matter will be redone and only for the purpose of being so redone, I quash Ext.P3. But, it is made clear that if the proposal ACDE cannot be worked out because there is property crossing, the permission granted as per the impugned order will be revived. The petitioner, the 3rd respondent or their representatives as also the 2nd respondent will be present before the 1st respondent on 20.4.2009 at 11 am. A decision in this regard will be taken as aforesaid within two weeks from 20.4.2009. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks