IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35513 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE CHANDY,S/O.CHANDY, AGED 79 YEARS, MADATHUNKAL VEEDU, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT MAGISTARATE/ DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MALLAPPALLY. 3. SRI.VIJAYAN NAIR, PANACHICKAL HOUSE, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMHITTA DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 35513 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property thorough which the 2nd respondent proposes to draw electricity lines for giving electricity supply to the 3rd respondent. Since the petitioner objected to such drawing of lines, the 2nd respondent has approached the 1st respondent for permission under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraphic Act. The 1st respondent has issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner inviting objections. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 objections which, the petitioner complains, has not been accepted on record. Petitioner’s contention is that without considering his objections, the 1st respondent cannot pass orders in the matter. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. 3. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent can pass orders only after considering the objections of the petitioner and passing a reasoned order as to why the W.P(C) No. 35513 of 2009 -2- alternate route suggested by the petitioner cannot be adopted for the purpose of drawing lines. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to see that Ext.P2 objections of the petitioner is duly considered and a reasoned order passed, taking into account the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard also. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance, along with a certified copy of this judgment. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge