IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18987 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.ANANDAN KOYIPPURATHU SREEMANDIRAM, PADINJATTINKARA, THEVALAKKARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISON, KSEB, KARUNAGAPPALLY SOUTH. 4. SMT. PADMINI, AMBAZHATHU THARAYIL, PADINJATTINKKARA, THEVALAKKARA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18987/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED LINE DRAWING AS WAS APPENDED IN THE PETITION. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT 15.4.2008 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A-11-15583/2008 DT 8.6.09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 20.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18987 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his delegated powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is stated that the 4th respondent applied to the 3rd respondent for supply of electrical energy to her residential premises. 2. Proposal was thereupon made by the 2nd respondent for drawing line. That was objected by the petitioner and six others. Thereupon, in order to get the obstruction removed, the 3rd respondent made an application to the 2nd respondent invoking his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act. Along with the application, Ext.P1 sketch was also enclosed. Notice was issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P2 is the objection that was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to Ext.P2, notice of hearing was ordered by one Raveendran Pillai, who was the then Additional District Magistrate. Accordingly, parties appeared before him and they were heard on 28th of May, 2008. According to the petitioner, on that occasion, the ADM directed WPC 18987/09 :2 : the Tahsildar to measure the alignments proposed by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and submit a report. It is stated that nothing further was heard in the matter. 3. Long thereafter, petitioner received Ext.P3 notice proposing inspection of the site. According to the petitioner, this inspection also did not materialise. While the matter stood as above, it is stated that on 27/6/2009, the 3rd respondent and other officers of the Board came to his property, drew the line to the 4th respondent's premises and energised the line as well. It is stated that when enquiry was made, petitioner was informed that on 20/6/2009, Ext.P4 order was passed by the 2nd respondent and that it was on the strength of that order, the line was drawn as above. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 4. Although several contentions are raised by the petitioner, one of the specific contentions raised is that on 28/5/2008, petitioner and other objectors were heard by the then Additional District Magistrate Sri.Raveendran Pillai and that Ext.P4 order has been passed almost an year thereafter and that too by his successor in office. This factual position is not disputed by the respondents. If that be so, necessarily Ext.P4 needs to be WPC 18987/09 :3 : invalidated on that ground and the matter needs to be reconsidered with notice to the petitioner and other objectors and also the 3rd and 4th respondents. For such reconsideration, Ext.P4 is quashed. 5. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and other objectors and the 3rd and 4th respondents and reconsider the application made by the 3rd and 4th respondents and pass fresh orders in the matter at any rate within two months, and if necessary, by conducting an inspection as well. 6. In the meantime, the line that is already drawn and energised will remain in place, but however, its continuance at the site or otherwise will depend on the outcome of the fresh order to be passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp