IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 23948 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURENDRAN.M.T,S/O.MADHAVAN,AGED 54 YRS, THEKKECHAKKANAT,EZHUPUNNA.P.O,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.TIBU DE PARAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,POOCHAKKAL. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SMT.RUGMANI,VADAKKECHAKKANAT, EZHUPUNNA.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 SENIOR G.P. SHRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23948/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.7.7.08. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.1.7.09 BY R4. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.7.09 BY THE ADM. P4. COPY OF THE SKETCH. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge . S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.23948 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property, through which the 3rd respondent proposes to draw electric lines to give electricity connection to the 5th respondent. Since the petitioner objected to the drawing of electric line, the 3rd respondent approached the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), who passed Ext.P3 order, in which permission was granted as proposed, to draw line through the petitioner's property. The petitioner's contention is that the ADM has not considered the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner. 2. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Board is that out of the three alternate routes suggested, two cannot be considered, since in respect of one, there would not be sufficient clearance from a building standing along the said route and the second one would necessitate cutting of several trees. Regarding the third alternate route suggested by the petitioner, the contention of the 3rd respondent is that for the same, consent from the owner of the property, Sri.Gopalakrishnan, is necessary. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. On a reading of Ext.P3, I find that the ADM has not considered the feasibility of the alternate routes suggested by the 2 petitioner, which the ADM ought to have done, which is the law as laid down by this Court. In the above circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed and this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall examine all the three alternate routes and place his suggestions before the ADM and the ADM shall consider the matter afresh after issuing notice to the owners of the properties through which the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner would pass through. The 3rd respondent shall place the suggestions before the ADM within two weeks. The ADM shall consider the matter afresh after hearing all parties concerned and pass orders giving specific reasons as to why one of the alternate routes cannot be chosen, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date when the 3rd respondent submits his proposal. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge