IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 500 of 2008(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- SUDARSANAN NAIR, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, GIRIJA BHAVANAM, ANAYADI P.O., NADUVILE MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, SASTHAMKOTTA. 4. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, SOORANADU NORTH. 5. VIJAYAN, VIJAYA SADANAM, ANAYADI P.O., NADUVILE MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.500 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the proposal of respondents 3 and 4 to draw electric line across the petitioner's property for giving electricity connection to the 5th respondent. The petitioner points out that there is an alternate route for drawing the electric line without any inconvenience to any other person. He refers to Ext.P2 rough sketch in this matter. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to draw electric line only through the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. 2. Learned standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that in view of the objection raised by the petitioner, the matter has been referred to the Additional District Magistrate and the matter would be proceeded only in accordance with the decision of the Additional District Magistrate. 3. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the Additional District Magistrate, who considers the matter, shall specifically consider W.P.(c) No.500/08 2 as to why the line cannot be drawn through the alternate route suggested by the petitioner and enter a specific finding thereon in relation to the least inconvenience caused in drawing the electric line to everybody. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.500/08 3