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. 25874 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAN V.R., VIRUTHIKOTTU HOUSE, CHEEPUNKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(GENERAL) & ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, GANDHI NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. SRI.DIVAKARAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEEPUNKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. SRI.THANKAN, CHENACHIRA HOUSE, DO. DO. DO. 6. SRI.VASU CHENACHIRA HOUSE, DO. DO. DO. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM 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. 25874/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD.26.6.09. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.24.10.08 BY R2. P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.26.8.09 TO R2. P4. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.27.8.09. P5. COPY OF THE SKETCH. P6. -DO- P7. -DO- P8. COPY OF THE PLAN. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge . S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 25874 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which the 3rd respondent proposes to draw electric lines for giving electricity connection to respondents 4 to 6. By Ext.P2 order, the 2nd respondent has permitted the 3rd respondent to draw lines as proposed by him under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petitioner is challenging that order. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has suggested an alternate route which has not even been considered by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “A] Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the Ext.P2 order. B] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the second respondent to consider the Ext.P4 application on merits after inspection of the site and hearing the parties;” 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board opposes the prayers. According to him, the 2nd respondent has considered all aspects of the matter before passing Ext.P2 order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext.P2 order reads thus: “The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical sub Division, Gandhinagar has filed a petition u/s 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act for removing the objections raised by the respondent against drawing the electric line to the residence of Sri.Divakaran, Puthenparambil, Cheepumkal P.O. In the petition, the Assistant Executive Engineer stated that the service line required for the purpose can be drawn by crossing the property of the respondents and that the route is the one causing least damage detriment and inconvenience to the respondents. 2 As such the parties were finally heard on 19.3.08 the petitioner the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical sub Division, Gandhinagar, the beneficiary and the respondents were present. On 18.10.08 site inspection conducted with all concerned except Rajan. On going through the records and arguments, I find that the route proposed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division Gandhinagar is more feasible and convenient. In the circumstance by virtue of powers conferred u/s 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with sec.51 of Indian Electricity Act, sanction is hereby accorded to draw the line to the residence of Sri.Divakaran, Puthenparambil, Cheepumkal P.O. as proposed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division Gandhinagar as per the rules of the KSEB.” On a reading of the same, I do not find any reasoning whatsoever except that he finds that the route proposed by the 3rd respondent is more feasible and convenient. It is settled law that while considering matters under Section 16(1), the Additional District Magistrate has to consider and state as to why the alternate routes suggested by the aggrieved party are not feasible. Since the 2nd respondent has not given any reasoning whatsoever in that respect I am satisfied that Ext.P2 is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law giving specific reasons as to why the alternate route suggested by the petitioner is not feasible, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned, 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 3