IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5906 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOIDEENKUNHI HAJI, S/O.KUTTIHASSAN HAJI, KALILAVIL HOUSE, ODAYOTHPOYIL, KODUVALLI P.O. KIZHAKKOTHU AMSOM, DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KERLA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THE OFFICE OF THE KSEB,THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BOARD SECRETARIAT, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, 695014,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. CHANDRAN PANICKER, S/O.APPU PANICKER, POONOOR P.O., KIZHAKKOTH, KODUVALLI P.O. KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 5906 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 order passed by the first respondent Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode and set aside/quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order. (ii) To direct the respondents 1 to 3 to hand over to the petitioner copies of all the documents and materials relied on by the first respondent while passing Exhibit P1 order by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order. (iii) to grant such other relief in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. As discernible from Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent, the first sitting in respect of the proceedings was conducted on 12.11.2008 and eventhough a total of 'six' hearings were held, but for the first hearing, the petitioner did not choose to appear on any of the subsequent hearings. In view of the objections raised by the petitioner in drawing the electric line through the property of the petitioner, to give connection to the house of the 4th respondent, the matter was considered by the 1st respondent in the light of the proposed route and sketch submitted by the Electricity Board and also the alternate route suggested 2 WP(C) No. 5906/2010 by the petitioner herein. During the course of site inspection, it was observed by the first respondent that there was already an existing post in the property of the petitioner and it was from this post, that the line was proposed to be drawn by the Board to give connection to the 4th respondent. But during the course of inspection,it was also observed that the construction of a residential building was going on in the property of the petitioner and in the said circumstance, the existing electric post would be necessitated to be shifted to the side of the property and that the same would be beneficial to the petitioner; on which event, the line could be drawn and proceeded to be taken to the property of the 4th respondent along the boundary of the property of the petitioner. 4. With regard to the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, it was revealed in the inspection conducted by the first respondent, that the said route was not feasible and was more expensive, involving installation of three additional posts and three property crossing. It was taking note of the entire facts and circumstances as above, that instruction was given to the Board to submit a fresh proposal as to the shifting the existing post from the middle of the property of the petitioner to the boundary and to draw the line from there, to the property of the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the Board submitted a 'revised sketch' in the hearing on 06.01.2010. For drawing the line as above, it was found that 14 metres of overhead line and 22 metres of weather proof 3 WP(C) No. 5906/2010 wire were required. The route as above has been clearly specified in the sketch submitted by the Board, which has been ear-marked as A-B1C. It was after meticulous analysis as all the fats and circumstances as above, that Ext.P1 order was passed by the first respondent in the hearing held on 13.01.2010. This being the position, the averment of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the first respondent as a 'bolt from the blue', pursuant to the 'revised sketch' submitted by the 2nd respondent on 06.01.2010 and that the proceedings were finalised behind the back of the petitioner are not correct or sustainable. There is no case for the petitioner that the petitioner was not present at the time of the site inspection or that the observation made by the first respondent in Ext.P1 order as to the sequence of events, particularly as to the absence of the petitioner in all the hearings except for the first hearing held on 12.11.2008, is not correct or proper. This Court finds that Ext.P1 order has been passed by the first respondent taking note of the entire facts and circumstances and that there is proper application of mind. Absolutely no plea of malafides or any extraneous consideration has been raised or brought out. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits or bonafides. No interference is warranted. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc