IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7694 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GOSPEL FOR ASIA, H.Q AT MANJADI, THIRUVALLA,REP. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE DR. DANIEL JOHNSON,REP. THROUGH HIS P/A HOLDER T.P. MATHEW, S/O.T.M.PHILIP,THAZHATTAMALAYIL(H),CHIRAYIRAMNU.PO MARAMON,THOTTAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE,WORKING AS G.M BC CHERUVALLY ESTATE,ERUMELY.P.O,KANJIRAPALLY,KTM. 2. T.P. MATHEW, AGED 61, S/O.T.M.PHILIP, THAZHATTAMALAYIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU.P.O, MARAMON, THOTTAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER, BC CHERUVALLY ESTATE, ERUMELY.P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECT AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B DIVISIONAL OFFICE, POINKUNNAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTIION, KANJIRAPPALLY. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B ELECTRICAL SECTION, ERUMELI. 7. SRI. JAYACHANDRARAJ, CHAIRMAN, PANCHATHEERTHA PARASHAKTI DEVASTHAN, ANCHUKUZHY, ERUMELY.P.O. BY SC FOR KSEB PP THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 7694 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Standing counsel takes notice for respondents 4 to 6. Notice to 7th respondent dispensed with, preserving the right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. Ext.P3, the impugned order is generated on an application filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of KSEB under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The objector to the drawal of the line is the first petitioner through the second petitioner. For removal of obstruction in terms of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the petitioners were entitled to be heard. Even going by Ext.P3, they were not heard. Petitioners also state that they were not given any notice of the so-called site inspection stated to have been conducted by the Additional District Magistrate. Hearing is necessary. Notice of any site inspection may be a matter of convenience, since site inspection is not always Wp(c 7694/2009 2 mandatory. Whatever it be, it is appropriate in the circumstances that the petitioners are heard and the Additional District Magistrate, if necessary, conducts site inspection on a date that may be announced at the hearing. To expedite the proceedings to ensure that the proposed consumer gets the electrical energy at the earliest, Ext.P3 is quashed and third respondent is directed to take back the proceedings that led to Ext.P3; issue notice to 7th respondent and pass order after hearing the second petitioner on behalf of the petitioners and 7th respondent. The petitioners are directed to mark their appearance before the Additional District Magistrate on 20.3.2009 with a copy of this judgment and a copy of this writ petition to expedite the proceedings. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/13/3