IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16436 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KARUNAKARAN , AGED 62 YEARS S/O. KUNJU KUNJU, SHAN NIVAS, VAYALA, ERATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, VAYALA POST, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION SUB DIVISION,EZHAMKULAM ,PARAKODE P.O. 4. SASI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,GIREESH BHAVANAM,VAYALA, ERATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. C.K.GOPALAN, ABOUT 54 YEARS, KOPPARA VEED, VAYALA, ERATH VILLAGE, VAYALA POST, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. WP(C).No. 16436 of 2008(F) -2- 6. KUNJUKUNJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, CHAMAVILA PUTHENVEEDU,VAYALA POST, ERATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX FOR R4,6 SRI.K.P.SURESH KUMAR FOR R4.6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16436 of 2008(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ORDER DTD. 1.3.2008 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P2: REVIEW PETITION DTD. 17.3.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P3: SALE DEED NO.742/1987 DTD. 21.2.1987 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P4: REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD. 6.2.2008 IN I.A.NO.144/08 OF O.S.NO.44/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. EXT.P4(a): REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD. 11.3.2008 IN I.A.NO.266/08 OF O.S.NO.82/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): SKETCH PREPARED BY R4 AND R6. EXT.R4(b): PLAINT IN O.S.44/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. EXT.R4(c): WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY R4 AND R6 IN O.S. NO.44/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. ....... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16436 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is an order passed under section 16 of the Telegraph Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had raised objection and there was no application of mind. It is stated that if the line is drawn across the rubber plantation, there can be constant destruction to the supply on account of falling of rubber trees. It is the case of the petitioner that he has suggested an alternate route and that was not considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the newly constructed route, 23 rubber trees were cut and removed and line can be drawn through the said route. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 6, learned Government Pleader and learned standing counsel for the Board. There is no appearance for the 5th respondent. After having perused the order passed, I am of the view that the Magistrate has not applied his mind to the alternate route suggested in a proper manner. In the light of the same, the matter WPC.16436/08 : 2 : requires reconsideration. 2. In the light of the fact that the matter is being directed to be reconsidered and the urgency of the matter, the petitioner and respondents 4 and 6 will appear before the 1st respondent on 14.8.2008. The 1st respondent need not issue notice to the petitioner or respondents 4 and 6. However, he shall issue notice to the 5th respondent so that he may be informed before the proposed hearing on 14.8.2008. It is noted that there were two proposals seen considered in Ext.P1. The persons affected by the other proposal, Sri.Podiyan and Smt.Valsala, were not made parties in the writ petition. When the matter comes for reconsideration, it is made clear that the proposal to take the line through the properties of Sri.Podiyan and Smt.Valsala will not be considered. A decision will be taken in the matter in accordance with law, after hearing the parties as aforesaid within a period of three weeks from 14.8.2008. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks