IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26131 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOLLY THOMAS, KOPHARA VEEDU, KUDAPPANAKUNNU KARAYIL, PERURKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 001. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, CHENGANNUR - 689 121. 3. SRI.SAJAN MATHEW, ARAYALUMMOOTTIL, PUTHENCAVU, CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA- 689 121. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26131 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the respondent Board has been permitted and directed to draw the 11 KV line through the proposed route. The grievance projected by the petitioner against the said order dated 07.10.2009 is that the petitioner was never informed of the finalization of the proceedings by the 1st respondent and no opportunity of hearing was given. The petitioner knew about the said proceedings only in June, 2010 and immediately he filed a petition on 04.06.2010, followed by Ext.P2 representation dated 28.07.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no notice of hearing, whatsoever was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner before passing the order. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board as well as the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent who submit that the proceedings were finalized by the 1st respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, though the same was not made use of by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader made available to the relevant files for perusal. On going through the file, it is seen that the notice sent to the petitioner by registered post is referred to 2 WP(C) No. 26131/2010 in Ext.P1 itself; for which there was no response. It is also revealed from the file that a subsequent notice was also issued to the petitioner in the very same address, as now given in the Writ Petition, which however was returned as refused. In the said circumstances, the alleged denial of opportunity of hearing, as now projected from the part of the petitioner, is quite wrong and contrary to the actual facts and figures. This Court finds no tenable grounds to call for any interference. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc