IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29711 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SASIDHARAN, NELLIVILA VEEDU, KAMUKUMCHERRY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (DIST. MAGISTRATE), KOLLAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PATHANAPURAM. 3. FALGUNAN, MUKALUVILA VEEDU, KAMUKUMCHERRY P.O. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29711/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.90/1990 DT 12.3.1990. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.48/1990 DT 12.3.1990. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETER NO.DB/16/05-06/218 DT 22.2.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.9697/06 DT 4.10.2006 OF TAHSILDAR, PUNALOOR. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.11350/06 DT 4.8.2006 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A4.11350/06 DT 27.10.2006 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2006. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 1.3.2006 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.M4.11350 DT 9.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ROUTE PROPOSED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29711 OF 2006 (K) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, an order passed by the 1st respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, permitting to draw an electric line to the premises of the 3rd respondent for supplying energy. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the 3rd respondent applied to the 2nd respondent for supply of energy to his premises. Thereupon, 2nd respondent drew up a proposal, in terms of which, a portion of the line was to be drawn through the property of the petitioner. Yet another portion was drawn over a plot of land belonging to the petitioner's mother as well. Notice was issued and the petitioner and his mother filed their objections. Subsequently, local inspection was also held by the Tahsildar with notice to the petitioner and his mother. However, when final hearing was held, Ext.P7 notice was issued, scheduling hearing to 8/11/06 and Ext.P7 notice shows that it was addressed only to his mother and not to the petitioner. WPC 29711/06 :2 : 3. Therefore, without hearing the petitioner, Ext.P10 order was passed removing the obstruction and permitting that line be drawn through petitioner's property also. It is challenging Ext.P10, this writ petition is filed. 4. Counsel therefore contends that Ext.P10 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This being the factual position, for that reason, the matter needs to be reconsidered. 5. However, it is now pointed out that the line has already been drawn and that it has been energised and supply is being made to the 3rd respondent pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 20/8/07 passed by this Court. Having regard to all the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 1) That the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents and hear the parties and on such hearing, if the 1st respondent feels that a review of Ext.P10 is called for, necessary orders reviewing Ext.P10 will be passed. 2) It is stated that in the meanwhile status quo as on date WPC 29711/06 :3 : will be maintained. 3) Orders as above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp