IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3575 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL SATHAR, RIYAS MANZIL, EDATHUNDI, MANCHA PO, MEDUMANGAD. BY ADVS. MR.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, MR.S.S.HUSSAIN, MR.NIYAS A.SALAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PEYAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MINI, MINI BHAVAN, EDATHUNDIL, MANCHA PO, NEDUMANGAD. R1 & R4 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B, R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED HASHIM, R5 BY ADVS. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, MR.K.SATHEESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3575/2009-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/12/2008 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 28/11/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 17/12/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 02/01/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3575 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is stated that the 5th respondent applied for power supply, and as the alignment was over the petitioner's house, the petitioner objected to the proposal. Thereupon the 4th respondent took up the matter before the 3rd respondent. Exts.P2 to P4 are the objections that were filed by the petitioner. However, after a local inspection, by Ext.P1 order, the 3rd respondent allowed the line to be drawn. It is now disclosed that the line was accordingly drawn and was energised on 25/02/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in Ext.P1 order passed by the 3rd respondent, none of the objections raised by him in Exts.P2 to P4 have been considered. 3. I have gone through Ext.P1 order passed by the 3rd respondent, and on a reading of Ext.P1order I am inclined to agree with the contention raised. Therefore, Ext.P1 order is bad for non- WP(C) No.3575/2009 -2- consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. For the aforesaid reason, I set aside Ext.P1 and direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 & 5. In the meanwhile, status quo as on date will continue. Fresh orders in the matter shall be passed as directed above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg