IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34627 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAVITHRI AMMA, KEMATTU HOUSE, KAVALAM.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT "LAKSHMI NILAYAM", KAVALAPPARA.P.O, ATHANI SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MANKOMBU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SAJIMON, ATTUKADAVU, KAVALAM.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF SALE DEED. P2 COPY OF NOTICE DT 6.5.2008 BY R3. P3 COPY OF OBJECTION DT 26.5.08 SUBMITTED TO R3. P4 COPY OF NOTICE DT 27.5.08 ISSUED BY R3. P5 COPY OF NOTICE DT 31.10.08 ISSUED BY R3. P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 31.11.08. P7 COPY OF ORDER DT 12.11.08 ISSUED BY R1. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34627 OF 2008 V ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is an order passed under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 granting permission to the authority to draw electric line to give connection to the house of the beneficiary as per the first proposal of the petitioner. Two complaints are raised before me by the petitioner. Firstly, it is pointed out that though it is stated in the order that site inspection has been conducted, the site inspection was not carried with notice to the petitioner. Secondly, it is contended that there is an alternate route suggested by the petitioner. The alternate route is noted in the order but it is not seen considered. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader. There is no appearance for the 4th respondent though notice has been served on him by special messenger. On a perusal of the impugned order, I notice that the petitioner had specifically said the case that WPC.34627/08 : 2 : she has three children who have to construct houses and if the line is drawn as proposed, it will affect the construction and the line can be drawn through the western side of the property of the beneficiary. There is apparently no consideration of the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. This is clearly opposed to the dictum of this court in Valsamma Thomas Vs. Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979]. I feel, in such circumstances, Ext.P7 is liable to be interfered with. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. The 3rd respondent will consider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law, with an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE