IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 5171 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. NOUSHAD A.K., S/O.LATE MAMMED KOYA HAJI, AALOKKATTIL, ERAMANGALAM P.O., BALUSSERY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. HAVVA UMMA, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.LATE MAMMED KOYA HAJI, AALOKKATTIL, ERAMANGALAM P.O., BALUSSERY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. CHEKKINI, CHULLIYILLAMALAYIL, ERAMANGALAM P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH FOR R1, R2 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.P.R.SREEJITH FOR R3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 5171 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent. The 3rd respondent had applied for electricity connection to his residential house. Based on the petitioner's objection against drawing of electric lines through the private pathway the matter was referred by the second respondent to the first respondent. It is in the said circumstances that Ext.P1 order was passed by the first respondent. I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions on merits in view of the consent letters produced by the petitioner in this writ petition, along with a memo as Exts.P5 and P6. Exts.P5 and P6 are the respective consent letters of one Sri.Abdul Majeed and Smt.Kadeeja who are the siblings of the first petitioner. According to the petitioner drawing of lines through the proposed pathway would cause inconvenience to the vehicular access to their properties and electricity connection could be given to the 3rd respondent by drawing lines through the alternative route based on Exts.P5 WPC.No.5171/2010 : 2 : and P6. The respondents 2 and 3 also submitted that they got no objection to accept the said course of action. Accordingly, for the purpose of enabling the second respondent to draw the lines, taking into account Exts.P5 and P6, Ext.P1 is set aside. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that in the light of Exts.P5 and P6 the second respondent would be at liberty to draw electric lines through the alternative pathway for the purpose of granting electricity connection to the 3rd respondent. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge