IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 260 of 2008(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- LAKSHMI VISWANATH, KALIVILAKATHU VEEDU, KALLUVEETAMKUZHI, MANCODE P.O., CHITHARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM. 3. LATHA, KALIVILATHU MADATHIL VEEDU, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI, MANCODE P.O., CHITHARA, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. BY SC ADV. SRI.P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.260 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3, which is an order passed under the Indian Telegraph Act granting permission to the respondent authority under the Act to draw line for grant of connection to the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the order is vitiated. It is her case that it is passed without considering the alternate route proposed by her. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out Ext.P2, which is the objection of the petitioner. Petitioner also refers to Ext.P4 sketch to substantiate her grievances. Though served with notice, there is no appearance for the third respondent. 2. I heard learned Standing Counsel also. Having regard to the order passed, I feel that the matter requires reconsideration. It is pointed out that pursuant to Ext.P3 line has already drawn. This judgment should not be understood as meaning that pursuant thereto the line already drawn has to be dismantled. However, the authority, the first respondent, will apply its mind and take a decision taking note of the objections of the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the second respondent and also to the third respondent. The WPC. 260/2008. 2 alternate route proposed by the petitioner will also be considered. A decision as aforesaid will be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The fact that the line has been drawn will not stand in the way of the first respondent in taking a decision which involves the dismantling of the line already drawn if it is satisfied in law that in facts it is so warranted. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb