IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 23189 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.VISHWAMBARAN, MUNDUCHIRAYIL , MARUTHORVATTAOM.P.O. CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, CHERTHALA. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION CHERTHALA EAST. 4. ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. C.R.SANTHOSH, CHELLATTU HOUSE, CMC NO. 13, CHERTHALA. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23189/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.27.3.09. P2. COPY OF THE OBJECTION BEFORE R4 DTD.25.6.09. P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY R4 DATED.3.7.09. P4. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.27.7.09 TO R4. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.7.09. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R2A. COPY OF THE SKETCH. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.23189 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which the 2nd respondent proposes to draw electric lines for giving electricity connection to the 5th respondent. The 4th respondent has passed Ext.P5 order permitting the 2nd respondent to draw lines through the route proposed by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, there are more feasible routes through which line can be drawn. The petitioner contends that detailing the objections of the petitioner the petitioner had filed a counter affidavit in the proceedings before the 4th respondent. The petitioner received a notice posting the case on 27.7.2009 for hearing. On that day, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for adjournment on the ground that the petitioner wants to engage a lawyer to assist him. According to the petitioner, without considering that application, Ext.P5 order has been passed on 27.7.2009. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of Ext.P5 and a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner. 2. This is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board. He would submit that nothing prevented the petitioner from appearing for the hearing on 27.7.2009 with an advocate and 2 therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of hearing. 3. After hearing, taking a lenient view, I quash Ext.P5 and direct the 4th respondent to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner, the Electricity Board and the 5th respondent. While considering the same afresh, the 4th respondent shall consider the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner and give reasons as to why those alternate routes are not feasible. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge