IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15841 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KURIAKOSE ANTONY, VALAVANOLICKAL, KANAKAPPALAM. 2. MARY RAJU, W/O. LATE RAJU, NADUVATHRAPARAMBIL, KANAKAPPALAM P.O., ERUMELI. 3. GEORGE VARGHESE, NADUVATHRA, KANAKAPPALAM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. DR.PRASAD VARKEY, NADUVATHRA, KANAKAPPALAM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. GEORGE MATHEW, RICHMOUNT, KANAKAPPALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. GEORGE BABY, CHENKOTTAYIL HOUSE, KANAKAPPALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. THRESIAMMA MATHEW, KAVALAMPUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAKAPPALAM P.O., ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. C.M.KURIAKOSE, CHALAKUZHY HOUSE, KANAKAPALAM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. CHERIYAN PUNNOSE, NADUVATHRA, KANAKAPALAM, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 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 DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR SC FOR KSEB SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.15841 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, an order passed by the 3rd respondent exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, in relation to the drawing of 110KV line to the sub station at Kanakapalam in Kottayam District. 2. It is now informed by the Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board that in the judgment in WP(c).Nos.434/09 and 11372/09 this court has already set aside Ext.P5 order and directed reconsideration of the matter with notice to the parties. In view of the aforesaid judgment the prayer sought for in this writ petition to quash Ext.P5 does not survive for consideration . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the District Collector shall reconsider the matter as already directed with notice to the petitioners also. WP(c).No.15841/09 /2/ Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the District Collector for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.15841/09 /2/