IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 W.A.No. 2885 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34987/2009 .................... APPELLANT : APPELLANT ---------------------------------------- K.G.SIVADASAN, ROURKALA HOUSE, THRIKKANNAMANGAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. SASIKALA, "SANDHYA BHAVANAM", THRIKKANNAMANGAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTARAKKARA. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC, KSEB SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.2885 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. Appellant in this writ appeal is the petitioner in the writ petition which was filed praying for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, respondent No.2. By the said order, permission was granted to the Electricity Board to draw the electric line as suggested by the Board to give electric supply to respondent No.1 herein. 2. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, noticed that Ext.P4 order happened to be passed since the appellant failed to appear before respondent No.2 though a statement was filed on his behalf. 3. Learned counsel submits that there was no willful laches or negligence on the part of the appellant. He had in fact filed Ext.P2 reply in response to the notice issued to him by pointing out an alternate route through the northern side of his property rather than through the southern end of the property, as proposed by the Board. 4. We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the Board also. 5. Having carefully considered the entire materials available on record, we are of the view that the appellant can be given an opportunity to present his case before the authority concerned. We are persuaded to take the above view, since the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself without noticing the alternate route. W.A.2885 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 6. Therefore, Ext.P4 order is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after hearing respondent No.1 and the appellant. The feasibility of the alternate route suggested by the appellant through northern side of his property can be considered by respondent No.2. Needless to mention that it shall be ensured by respondent No.2 that adequate opportunity is provided to appellant and respondent No.1 before any final decision is taken. Respondent No.2 shall pass fresh orders in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes