IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2007 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 30780 of 2006(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. C.J.MATHEWS, S/O.C.M.JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, CHATHETTIL HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU, ANICADU, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ELEYAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.C.M.JOSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS, CHATHETTIL HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU, ANICADU, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. MR.SAMUEL, CHETHETTIL HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU, ANICADU, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. M.K.RAGHAVAN, KARIKAMURI PUTHANVEEDU, NOOROMMAVU, ANICADU, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. KRISHNAPILLA, PUTHANPURAKEL HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU, ANICADU, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. SUKUMARAN NAIR, PUTHANPURAKEL HOUSE, NOOROMMAVU, ANICADU, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 30780/2006 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE DATED 16/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIST. MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONERS. [ True copy ] tga K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------------ WP(C)NO.30780 OF 2006-L ------------------------------------------ Judgment The petitioners have approached this Court, challenging Ext.P1 order of the Additional District Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, permitting the drawing of an electricity line to give power supply to respondents 4 to 6. The petitioners submit, the said order was passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, Ext.P1 may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Additional District Magistrate for taking a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, it is submitted. 2. The second respondent has filed a statement, in which it is submitted that the third respondent was admittedly heard. He is the father of the first petitioner and the husband of the second petitioner. Further, the line is drawn through a pathway, it is submitted. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to them and their contention is only technical. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the order has been passed without hearing them. But, it has not been pointed out, in what manner, they have been prejudiced by the impugned order. The Additional District Magistrate has given sanction to draw the line through a pathway having a width of 3 metres leading to the residence of the consumers. So, even if the pathway belongs to the petitioners, I feel that no serious prejudice is caused to them by the drawing of the line. Therefore, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the 1st respondent for a fresh decision. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. 23.02.2007 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE sta WPC 30780/06 2