IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27503 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. C.M.KURIAKOSE, CHALAKUZHY HOUSE, KANAKAPALAM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THRESIAMMA MATHEW, KAVALAMPUTHUPARAMPIL HOUSE, KANAKAPALAM.P.O,ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. KURIAKOSE ANTONY, VALANNOLICKAL HOUSE, KANAKAPALAM.P.O, ERUMELY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. DR.PRASAD VARKEY, NADUVATHRA, KANAKAPALAM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. GEORGE BABY, CHENKOTTAYIL HOUSE, KANAKAPALAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRIT. 6. GEORGE VARGHESE, NADUVATHRA, KANAKAPALAM ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. T.T.THOMAS, THAKADIYEL, KANAKAPALAM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. GEORGY MATHEW, RICHMOUNT, KANAKAPALAM, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. CHERIYAN PUNNOSE, NADUVATHRA,KANAKAPALAM ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. V.J.GEORGE, S/O.P.O.JOHN, VADAKEDATHU HOUSE, KANAKAPPALAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 11. JOHN SAMUEL, S/O.P.O.JOHN,VADAKEDATHU, KANAKAPPALAM.P.O, ERUMELI. 12. MARY RAJU, W/O.LATE RAJU, NADUVATHRAPARAMPIL, KANAKAPPALAM.P.O, ERUMELI. 13. RAJEEVAN, S/O.KESAVAN, VATTUKAVIL HOUSE, KANAKAPPALAM.P.O, ERUMELI. 14. C.M.ABRAHAM, CHENGOTTAYIL, KANAKAPPALAM. P.O, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KSEB, POOVANTHURUTH, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB SUB STATION SUB DIVISION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27725 & 29851 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) Nos.27503, 27725 & 29851 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The orders impugned in these writ petitions is one and the same and it is passed by the Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act granting permission for drawal of the line. Common complaint in all these writ petitions is that though petitioners have raised objections indicating alternate routes, there is no consideration of the same. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Board and the learned Government Pleader. 3. On a perusal of the order, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned order would show that alternate routes were indeed pointed out by the parties. But there is no consideration of the same in the order. A Division Bench of this Court has laid down the principles to be followed in such matters in the decision reported Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate (1997(2) KLT 979) I would think that the impugned orders are vitiated for the reason that there is no consideration of the alternate routes, which are canvassed by the petitioners. Nothing is reflected in the order. WPC.27503/08 & con.cases. 2 In such circumstances, the impugned orders in all these cases are quashed. In view of the urgency expressed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, there will be a direction to the Magistrate to take up the matter and take a decision afresh in accordance with law with an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb