IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15577 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- HYDER, S/O.ASSAINAR, CHELATT HOUSE, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, TIRUR EAST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 4. SRI.SUDHAKARAN, ASSARIPARAMBIL, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. R1 & R2 BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 15577/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DRAWAL OF ELECTRICITY LINE DATED 18.4.2008. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT. R3(a) : REPORT DATED 25.4.2008 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 15577 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. The basic complaint raised is that Ext.P1 is issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, though going by Ext.P1, what is contemplated is only drawing of line for a very short distance, the site is set apart for the construction of a house for the son of the petitioner. 2. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that notice was served by affixture as the wife of the petitioner refused to accept the notice. Petitioner is abroad. There is no appearance for the fourth respondent. 3. In such circumstances, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner, at the same time maintaining the connection as already granted pursuant to Ext.P1. The writ petition is disposed of as follows: Ext.P1 is quashed for the reason that petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing and the third respondent will consider the matter afresh and take a decision with notice to the petitioner, the second respondent and the fourth respondent within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the WPC.15577/2008. 2 line already drawn and connected in favour of the fourth respondent pursuant to Ext.P1 need not be disconnected unless on a reconsideration of the matter, as directed by this court, it is found that there is substance in the complaint of the petitioner, which warrants acceptance of the case of the petitioner. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb