IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13677 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ JAYA, KANDATHILMOOLAYIL VEETIL MALAMEL, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHUTHA BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALAPPUZHA. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B, KAYAMKULAM 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECRICAL WEST SECTION, ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM. 5. RAJESH, RAJ BHAVANAM, MALAMEL BHAGOM KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. R1, R3 & R4 BY SC ADV. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 13677/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS.N2/34886/07 DATED 28.11.2007. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 13677 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order passed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. By the order, permission has been granted to the third respondent to draw the line over the property of the petitioner and her husband to give electric connection to the fifth respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The principal complaint raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner had in her objection put forth an alternate proposal, which involves drawing of only six meters weather proof line for giving connection. As of now, the accepted proposal involves drawing of 30 meters overhead line. It is complained that the alternate proposal has not been considered or discussed by the authorities. 4. I find that the said complaint of the petitioner is well founded. On a perusal of the order, there is no discussion of the alternate proposal put forth by the petitioner. I feel that the matter requires reconsideration. WPC.13677/2008. 2 Accordingly, Ext.P2 is quashed and the second respondent will reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter, it is agreed by the parties that they will appear before the second respondent on 5.6.2008. The second respondent will afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties, who appear before him, and proceed to consider the contentions and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of hearing. It is made clear that the second respondent need not issue notice to any of the parties in the light of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb