IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 36711 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SMT.RADHAMONY.L., VAZHAYIL THEKKETHIL NEDUVARAMCODE P.O., TURUTHIMEL, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF POWER ,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B (FORMERLY) CHENGANNUR. 4. SMT. THANKAMANY, VALIAPARAMBIL, NEDUVAMKODU P.O.,CHERINAD, CHENGANNUR. 5. SRI.KESAVAN, VAZHZYIL HOUSE NEDUMVARAMCODE P.O.,THURUTHIMEL, CHERIYANAD ,CHENGANNUR. 6. SRI.VIJAYAN, VAZHYIL THEKKETHIL NEDUMVARAMCODE P.O.,THURUTHIMEL, CHERIYANAD, CHENGANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36711/ 2008(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1444/84 OF CHENGANNUR SUB REGISTRY. EXHIBIT P1(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 6/2/2008 IN RESPECT OF ABOVE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/9/2008 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K DIS N2- 35093/08 DATED 15/10/2008 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE DISPUTED LOCATION BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.36711 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. It is stated that the 4th respondent applied for electricity connection. Initial proposal was to draw the line through a pathway, and that was objected by the 5th respondent and thereupon an application was made to the 2nd respondent. During the course of hearing, it was suggested that the line could be drawn through the properties of the 6th respondent. 3. Accordingly, notice was issued to the 6th respondent. But, however, he did not appear or contest, and therefore, the second proposal to draw the line through the properties indicated as that of the 6th respondent was approved in Ext.P3. 4. What the petitioner contends is that the 6th respondent is her estranged husband, who is none other than the brother of the 4th respondent, who is the beneficiary. According to the petitioner, WP(C) No.36711/2008 -2- the property, through which the line was permitted to be drawn and which was assumed to be that of the 6th respondent, is that of the petitioner and Ext.P1 is the title deed. Ext.P1(a) is also referred to as the receipt evidencing payment of land tax payable in respect of the land covered by Ext.P1. It is stated that the 6th respondent deliberately kept away from the proceedings and the petitioner was not issued any notice. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was misled to pass the order without hearing the affected parties. 5. Although notice was issued in this writ petition and service has been completed, respondents 4, 5 & 6 have not entered appearance. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent states that it was on the basis of the information made available to respondents 2 & 3 that notice was issued to the 6th respondent. It is also pointed out that on the strength of Ext.P3, line was drawn and supply was given with effect from 24/11/2008. 6. Irrespective of the disputed facts, it is the admitted position that the petitioner was not heard by the 2nd respondent before passing Ext.P3. Ext.P1 shows that she is the owner of the land in question. Therefore, even if the 6th respondent is her WP(C) No.36711/2008 -3- husband, still the petitioner, being the owner and affected party, ought to have been given notice. Having not done so, the proceedings leading to Ext.P3 cannot be upheld. Be that as it may, now that having regard to the fact that the line has already been drawn and energised with effect from 24/11/2008, I do not want to set aside the order, and create a vacuum. 7. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P3 was passed, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application made by the 4th respondent with notice to other parties to the proceedings, and also to the petitioner, and pass orders thereon, taking into account the objections that are raised by the petitioner also. Depending upon the decision to be so taken, if necessary, orders revising Ext.P3 will be issued by the 2nd respondent. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg