IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6836 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PATHUMMA,W/O.MANNETH KUNHALAN, CHAKKIPARAMBAN HOUSE,VETTIKATIRI-PO,VELLUVANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUB DIVISION-KSEB,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE- KSEB,MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 4. BALASUBRAMANIAN,S/O.KORU,THENNAT HOUSE, VETTIKATIRI-PO,VELLUVANGAD,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... WP (C) NO. 6836 of 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exhibit P1 order, contending that Exhibit P2 representation is liable to be considered, before proceeding with Exhibit P1 order any further. 2. Heard the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited extent of relief sought for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent. 4. Obviously, Exhibit P2 representation is dated as 23-02-2010 where as Exhibit P1 order was passed by the 3rd respondent on 17-02-2010. This being the WP (C) NO. 6836 OF 2010 2 position, there is absolutely no merits or bona fides on the part of the petitioner in contending that Exhibit P2 representation has not been considered by the 3rd respondent. It is very much relevant to note that the petitioner herein was very much a party before the 3rd respondent. This being the position, there is no point in raising any grievance or objection after obtaining reasonable opportunity of hearing provided by the 3rd respondent and after passing Exhibit P1 order. Further, it is very much clear from the last two paragraphs of the impugned order that, for providing the electric connection to the beneficiary, no additional taping of the electric line is necessary, but for changing the capacity of the existing weather proof wire, already drawn to the 2nd respondent into a higher capacity. The feasibility aspect and all other relevant aspects have been properly considered by the 3rd respondent with proper application WP (C) NO. 6836 OF 2010 3 of mind. Absolutely no interference is warranted. The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is not sustainable The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE //True copy// PA to Judge rkc