IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 13115 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ C.V.SHANKARAN, S/O.CHAMI, MUTHUKURISSI, ELAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. MUNDAN, S/O.VELU, PETTIKADUPARAMBU VEEDU ELAD, P.O.MUTHUKURISSI, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B, PULAMTHOLE, P.O.CHELAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 13115/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 3991/06 DATED 2.2.07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.3.2008. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 1.10.07. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 1.10.07. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT, R3(a) : REPORT DATED 6.3.2008 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.13115 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order by which permission has been granted to draw line using the property of the petitioner for giving connection to the first respondent. Though the first respondent is served with notice, there is no appearance for the first respondent. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity. 2. Counter affidavit is filed, wherein it is stated that the first hearing date was 10.3.2008. Notice was served on the petitioner by affixture and Ext.R3(a) is the report of the Village Officer. The next hearing date was 26.3.2008. It is stated in the order that the petitioner was not present on both the hearings. Apparently reliance is placed on the report of the Tahsildar that the electric line is to be drawn through the boarder from west to east after erecting two posts to effect the service connection to the beneficiary. 3. Learned Standing Counsel no doubt supports the order. But I feel that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to raise whatever objections he has and that should be considered and a decision should be WPC. 13115/2008. 2 taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and first respondent. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the first respondent is not having connection for a long period of time and therefore the matter has to be disposed of at the earliest. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: Ext.P3 is quashed for the reason that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner will be present before the third respondent at 11 a.m on 28.8.2008. The third respondent will thereafter proceed to hear the parties. The second respondent will also be present before the third respondent on 28.8.2008. No further notice need be issued to the petitioner and the second respondent and notice shall be issued to the first respondent informing about the posting on 28.8.2008. Thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, a decision will be taken in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of hearing. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb