IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3804 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MUHAMMED RAFI, S/O. ABDUL JABAR, AGED 31, KALLUMALA VEEDU, AYOOR P.O., KUZHIYAM, KOLLAM DIST 2. FATHIMA BEEVI, W/O. ABDUL JABAR, KALLUMALA VEEDU, AYOOR P.O., KUZHIYAM, KOLLAM DIST. 3. AZAD, S/O. ABDUL JABAR, KALLUMALA VEEDU, AYOOR P.O., KUZHIYAM, KOLLAM DIST. 4. ABDUL JABAR, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEF, KALLUMALA VEEDU, AYOOR P.O., KUZHIYAM, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, AYOOR. 4. D.KRISHNANKUTTY, SHAMILI MANDHIRAM, AYOOR P.O. CHADAYAMANGALAM. 5. SURESH BABU, KARAVARATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KUZHIYAM P.O., CHADAYAMANGLAM VILLAGE. 6. NADEERA, RASHEED MANZIL, KUZHIYAM, AYOOR KOLLAM DIST. 7. JOHNSON, SANJU VILASAOM, KUZHIYAM AYOOR, KOLLAM DIST. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2,3 SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ FOR R4 SRI.R.V.SREEJITH FOR R6 SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.3804/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS. P2 COPY OF ORDER DT 23.7.08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R4(A) COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 11.2.09. R4(B) COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 9.2.09. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3804 OF 2009 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenge Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the 1st respondent under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. I heard parties except the 7th respondent. 3. A perusal of the order would show that there are three proposals. The order would show that the Magistrate has referred to the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter, it is stated that the first proposed route ABCDEFG is the most feasible one and it passes through a foot path used by several people. Then permission is granted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no discussion. He further submits that no notice was issued to the petitioners. It is pointed out that petitioners 1 to 3 are independent owners of properties. He relies on Ext.P1 sketch. Of course, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is only a pathway and no inconvenience is caused. Learned counsel for the petitioners then refers to route WPC.3804/09 : 2 : No.3 also. It is submitted that the 3rd route is the shortest route and yet without giving any reasons, ABCDEFG route is adopted. A Division Bench of this court has laid down the manner in which the application to be considered in Valsamma Thomas Vs. Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979]. Therein, the Division Bench has held as follows. “The order will be after considering the objections raised by the parties and reasons should be given by the Magistrate for accepting or rejecting the same.” According to the learned counsel on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, the second proposal is not to be accepted as it passes through their property. 4. I feel that the matter is to be redone. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is quashed. In view of the urgency expressed by the beneficiary, the petitioners or their representatives and respondents 4 to 6 or their representatives as also the 3rd respondent shall be present before the 1st respondent at 11 am on 3.4.2009. The 1st respondent will, in the meantime, issue notice to the 7th respondent informing him about the fact that the case WPC.3804/09 : 3 : stands posted, pursuant to the judgment of this court, on 3.4.2009. After hearing the parties or their representatives, a decision will be taken by the 1st respondent in the matter within two weeks from 3.4.2009. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE