IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 19436 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. DAMODARAN, VIZHASSERIL, KARUNGAPPALLY, VAVAKKAVU PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY 690 528. 2. SHANMUGHAM, VIZHASSERIL, KURUNGAPPALLY, VAVAKKAVU PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY 690 528. BY ADVS.MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR MR.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, OCHIRA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SESSION, PUTHIYACAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. MANCHU, CHERUMANNIL KIZHAKKATHIL VAVAKKAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY 690 528. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM R3 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.19436/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER, DTD. 24.3.0-9. P2:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER, DTD. 24.3.09. P3:- ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS AND 4TH RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD. 20.6.09. R2(a):- A ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ROUTE FOR DRAWAL OF ELECTRIC LINE. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.19436 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the owners of the property through which the 2nd respondent proposes to draw electric line for giving connection to the 4th respondent. Since the petitioners objected to the same, the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent, who passed Ext.P4 order permitting the 2nd re respondent to draw line through the petitioners' properties. The petitioners are challenging the same on the ground that there are other feasible routes available, which was brought to the attention of the 1st respondent, who has not considered the same, as is evident from Ext.P4. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, in which the contentions of the petitioners are sought to be refuted. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P4 order, I feel that the order has not been passed in accordance with the proposition of law laid down by this Court Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979]. When a party objects to drawing of electric lines through his property and points out an alternate route, the Additional District Magistrate has a duty to consider and state in his order, as to why that alternate route is not more feasible than the route suggested by the 2 Electricity Board. Absolutely, no such consideration is evident from Ext.P4. On that ground alone, Ext.P4 is liable to be quashed. I do so. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submits that for considering the feasibility of the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners, the owners of the properties through which lines have to be alternatively drawn have also to be heard. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the entire matter including the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners after hearing all parties who would be affected by the alternate routes also. I make it clear that the orders to be passed by the Additional District Magistrate shall be a speaking order dealing with every aspect of the case and giving reasons as to why the alternate routes are not more feasible than the one suggested by the Board. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE