IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10719 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KRISHNANKUTTY, KUZHUPILLY, CHEMMATTE VEEDU, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. 3. THANKAPPAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, PAMPADY HOUSE, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.M. MANOJ. R2 BY ADV. MR. K.M. SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10719 of 2008(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2008 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ALTERNATE ROUTE. EXT.P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OFD THE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2008 GIVEN TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSALS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 10719 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th August , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent, whereby the course suggested by the Board for giving electric connection to the third respondent, by drawing line through the property of the petitioner was accepted and ordered accordingly, 2. After filing the writ petition, the line was actually drawn and connection was given to the third respondent, which made the petitioner to amend the writ petition. Service of notice to the third respondent has been completed through Special Messenger, despite which, he has not turned up to contest the matter. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation made by the first respondent in Ext. P1 is quite wrong and unfounded, in view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Board, particularly, the contents of paragraph 4, W.P.(C) No. 10719 OF 2008 2 which reads as follows: “ 4. The proposed line and the alternate proposals are shown in the sketch produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(a). The connection is effected as shown in Route 1 in the sketch. The W.P. line is having length of 23.5. meters out of which 10 meters passing through the petitioner's property. If the line is drawn according to the Route 2, a length of 17.5 meters of W.P. line will be passing through the petitioner's property. If the line is drawn as shown in Route 3 insertion of two poles are necessary and 18 meters of W.P line will pass through the petitioner's property.” The learned Counsel submits that the first respondent had observed in Ext. P1 that there is 'only one route', i.e., the proposed route marked as 'AB' for effecting electric connection to the house of the beneficiary, whereas the respondent Board has conceded in paragraph '4' of the affidavit that 'three routes' are available . The learned Counsel further submits that the request of the petitioner is only to shift the line from the present position, where the residential building of the petitioner is W.P.(C) No. 10719 OF 2008 3 situated, to another property, which is a paddy land owned by the petitioner himself; with regard to which, there cannot be any grievance for the Board or the beneficiary. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that, if the line is drawn through the alternate route, it will invite further expenditure, particularly for drawing the weather proof wire and also for the additional posts to be planted. However, the fact remains that this alternate route was not considered by the first respondent while passing Ext.P1. Going by the contents of paragraph '4', it appears that the extent of dispute is only with regard to the expenditure to install the requisite length of 'weather proof line' and the number of posts required. 5. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent with reference to the 'three different routes' referred to in para '4' as aforesaid. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to re-consider and finalise the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the third respondent. The proceedings shall be finalised, in W.P.(C) No. 10719 OF 2008 4 accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk