IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14425 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHANMUGHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 67 YEARS, SAPTHAGIRI P.V. NORTH, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISIION, KUNDARA. 2. SMT. SARASWATHY, EKKAM VEEDU THAZHAM KIZHAKKARALLODU, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRA4TE (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.14425 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that on the orders of the 3rd respondent, electric line to the 2nd respondent was drawn across his property. It is stated that, seeking to have the line shifted, he approached the 3rd respondent by filing an appropriate application but however, the same has been disposed of by Ext.P10. According to the petitioner Ext.P10 is bad for the reason that it does not reflect consideration of the contentions raised by him in Ext.P9. 2. However, a reading of Ext.P9 shows that the proposals made by the petitioner in Ext.P9 were considered by the 3rd respondent who found the same to be not feasible. It was on that basis that the 3rd respondent declined the request of the Petitioner. Ext.P10 also shows the willingness of the 3rd respondent to consider any alternate proposal which the Petitioner may have. WP(c).No.14425/09 2 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the statement to that effect in Ext.P10, he has filed Ext.P11 with alternate proposals, followed by reminders evidenced by Ext.P12 and P13. It is stated that none of these requests namely Exts.P11 to P13 evoked any response. 4. Taking into account the grievance of the petitioner regarding the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent on Exts.P11 to P13, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exts.P11 to P13 with notice to the parties, as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent who shall take expeditious action as directed above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.14425/09 3