IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 1521 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19837/2008 Dated 03/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- JOMON JOHN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH JOHN, RESIDING AT AKATHOTTIRUKKUM KUNNATH HOUSE, THURAVOOR SOUTH.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. NARAYANI, KAITHAKATTU NIKARTHIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 4. N.S.S KARAYOGAM NO. 768, THURAVOOR SOUTH.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOPALAN NAIR. R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1521 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. Whether the course pursued by the learned Single Judge declining interference with Ext.P3 order, whereby the Additional District Magistrate ordered to draw electric line through the property of the writ petitioner (in part), simultaneously ordering to have it drawn through part of the property of the 4th respondent herein; so as to give power connection to the 3rd respondent, is corrector not, is the issue in the appeal. 2. The sequence of events as narrated by the appellant/petitioner is as follows. On obtaining application from the 3rd respondent to provide electricity connection, the 2nd respondent Board initiated steps which however was objected by the petitioner stating that the 3rd respondent had access to the property from the nearby Panchayat Road, through the property of 4th respondent and that the line could WA No. 1521 of 2008 -:2:- be drawn through such pathway in the property of the 4th respondent. Existence of such pathway was denied by the 4th respondent. 3. The matter was taken up before the 1st respondent, who is the statutory authority to deal with the dispute, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and also the Electricity Act, 2003. In the course of proceedings, records were called for and they were produced. During the course of personal hearing, the rival contentions were asserted from both the sides. After hearing both the sides, the 1st respondent found that interest of justice would stand satisfied, minimising the hardships to all, if the line was caused to be drawn partly through the property of the petitioner and partly through the property of the 4th respondent; which was ordered accordingly and in turn is under challenge. 4. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the Additional District Magistrate has considered the matter meticulously; observing that there were three alternative proposals i.e., (1) to draw the entire line through the property of the petitioner, (2) to draw the entire line through the property of WA No. 1521 of 2008 -:3:- the 4th respondent and (3) partially through the property of the petitioner and partially through the property of 4th respondent. It was after taking note of the relevant aspects as to the feasibility and to reduce the damage/hardship if any, to those concerned, that it was sought to be distributed in an equitable manner, leading to Ext.P3 order, accepting the third proposal; which was subjected to challenge by filing the writ petition. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge found that the statutory authority has adopted a balanced view and that the matter did not require any interference. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979] and on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. K.S.E.B [1988 (2) KLT 248]. The facts and circumstances of the case dealt with in 1988 (2) KLT 248 stand entirely on a different footing as revealed from paragraphs 9 of the judgment. WA No. 1521 of 2008 -:4:- With regard to the law declared by the Division Bench in 1997 (2) KLT 979, paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment read as follows: “11. It is also clear from the authorities and judicial decisions that judicial review is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making process. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. 12. Thus, on a review of the authorities of this question, we come to the following conclusions: (1) The District Magistrate has to exercise his discretion judicially. (2) He has to pass the order under S.16(1) of the Telegraph Act, after hearing the parties and after taking such evidence as is required with regard to the objections raised. (3) The order passed by the Court should be a speaking order. (4) The order should reflect the objections raised by the parties and reasons given by the Magistrate for accepting or rejecting the same. (5) The order should also reflect the materials relied on by the District Magistrate for arriving at the conclusion. If the discretion is exercised by the District Magistrate as above, then unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or that the proceedings are vitiated by malafides this Court will not be justified in interfering with such orders. This Court will not be justified in substituting its own opinion. It is also WA No. 1521 of 2008 -:5:- worth bearing in mind that this Court has not got technical expertise and will be slow to interfere with such matters.” It is obvious from the said verdict that the parameters mentioned therein are satisfied by the statutory authority and Ext.P3 order has been passed after hearing both sides and considering the objections in detail. The statutory authority passed the order by accepting the most feasible proposal and accordingly, the line was directed to be drawn partially through the property of the petitioner and partially through the property of the 4th respondent; thus minimising the burden, if any. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 1521 of 2008 -:6:-