IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 36573 of 2005(D) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.PONNIAH, HOUSE NO.16/367, CHIRAKKAD, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD. 2. SMT.NIRMALA, W/O.BHASKARAN, CHIRAKKAD, 16/367, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. 3. BALASUBRAHMANIAN, CHIRAKKAD, 16/368, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. 4. RAMAN, S/O.RAMU, 16/408(1), CHIRAKKAD, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY SHRI P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 TO 4 R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.5.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 36573 OF 2005 D PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1A ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, PROPERTY OF RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AS WELL AS THE LIE OF MUNICIPAL ROADS ABUTTING THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES. EXT.P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.8.2005 IN WP(C). NO.23391/2003. EXT.P3TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.D3.2005/38769/9 DATED 28.10.2005. EXT.P4TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT4S 2 TO 4. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 (A) TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER BEASRING NO.D3 2005/38769/9K. DIS. DATED 21.12.2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 36573 OF 2005 D -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 which is an order passed under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act granting permission to the respondent Electricity Board to draw electric line for giving connection to respondents 3 and 4. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The contention of the petitioner as projected through his counsel Shri N. Raghuraj is that when the petitioner had objected to the drawing of the line and had suggested alternative proposal, the first respondent was duty bound to consider the objection. It is his case that there was no site inspection. He has also relied on Ext.P1 sketch to contend that respondents 2 to 4 have direct access to the Municipal road on the west of the property. In the order it is stated that taking into consideration the aspects involved in the case, there is not much hardship and it will promote better relationship between the parties. I would WPC. 36573/05 D 2 think that the matter has to be reconsidered and a fresh decision taken. It is brought to my notice that already the line has been drawn. Even though the matter is to be reconsidered, I make it clear that the line will not be dismantled. A decision has to be taken. Accordingly, for the purpose of taking a decision, Ext.P7 is quashed and the first respondent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4, shall take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. If the petitioner requests for site inspection, an appropriate decision thereon shall be taken by the first respondent. The parties will be permitted to produce such materials as they are advised to produce. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge