IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3546 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD., IIND FLOOR, CHAKKARCHERY TOWER, SEA PORT AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANADU, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON BOBY SEBASTIAN, CIRCLE HEAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASST.ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SECTION, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION, KSEB VYDHUTHIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KSEB REP.BY ITS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SECTION, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 3546 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the lethargy on the part of the respondents in providing electric connection to the petitioner, despite all the statutory requirements are satisfied. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board, on instruction, submits that the original route proposed to draw the line and provide connection to the petitioner's tower was objected to from the part of local residents, under which circumstances, the matter had to be re- considered and so as to settle the issue, the respondents considered the feasibility of drawing the line through the alternate route and proceedings in this regard are going on. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that once the matter is finalized, the decision will be intimated to the petitioner and all steps will be taken to provide necessary connection. W.P.(C)No. 3546 OF 2010 2 3. In the above circumstances, after hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it fit and proper to keep the Writ Petition pending further and it is closed, however, directing the respondents to finalise the proceedings, as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk