IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9724 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BALAKRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, AGED 87 YEARS, KUNNIKULAM HOUSE, THONNUKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY VIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDL.DIST.MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 4. RAMANARAYANAN, RAMATTOOR VEEDU, THONNOOR KARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 9724 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers. (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent not to draw electric line through the property owned by the petitioner. (ii) Declare that proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent before the 3rd respondent without making the petitioner as a party is illegal. (iii) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit ad proper in the circumstances of this case. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the disputed property stated as belonging to the petitioner is an existing pathway leading to the property of the daughter of the petitioner, by name Chandrika. Notice has already been issued to Chandrika and thereafter the proceedings were finalised by the ADM as per order dated 23.12.2009 produced and marked as Ext.R1(b) along with the counter affidavit. With reference to Ext.R1 (a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit, the learned standing counsel submits that, the line was originally intended to be drawn through the pathway, by planting a post in the property of Chandrika (daughter of the petitioner) and then to draw the line in the manner shown as 'JHG' to give connection to the 4th respondent and others concerned. Subsequently, the ADM suggested a different course, whereby the line was intended to be drawn from the point 'K' in the pathway, directly to cross through the corner of 2 WP(C) No. 9724/2010 the property of one Mr.Narayanan, who has given consent in this regard and then to proceed to the point 'G' to provide connection to the 4th respondent; thus sparing the property of the daughter of the petitioner. 2. It is however conceded by the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that Ext.P1 objection was submitted by the daughter of the petitioner and it was accordingly, that she was heard while passing the order by the ADM. Specific objections were raised in Ext.P1 stating that the pathway actually belonged to the father of the aforesaid Chandrika. The matter was intended to be pursued by the petitioner himself by filing Ext.P2 objections, followed by Ext.P3 lawyer notice. The rights and interest of the petitioner over the property through which the line is sought to be drawn have not been considered any where by the ADM while passing Ext.R1(b). It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.R1(b) was never passed with any notice to the petitioner, as no reference is made anywhere therein and that the petitioner came to know about the same only on filing the counter affidavit. 3. Eventhough the grievance, if any, of the daughter of the petitioner stands redressed, in so far as planting of the post in her property has been spared, the fact remains that a post is to be planted in the 'pathway', either at the point 'K' or 'J'. Since there is no dispute with regard to the right of ownership of the pathway, which is stated as vested with the petitioner, this 3 WP(C) No. 9724/2010 Court finds that it was very much necessary for the ADM to have served a notice to the petitioner, before the proceedings were finalised. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has assigned only an extent of 5 cents of land to his daughter Chandrika; the petitioner is still having property there, access to which is through the 'pathway', through which the line is proposed to be drawn. 3. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the matter has to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent with proper notice to the petitioner and others concerned, before the proceedings are finalised. Accordingly, the order stated as passed by the 3rd respondent (Ext.R1(b)] is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter giving notice of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner, Chandrika as well as the beneficiaries concerned. The proceedings as above shall be finalised in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six' weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc