IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21034 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JIJI,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.KORUTHU KORUTHU, KALLELIKUNNATHU, MULAKUZHA P.O., CHENGANNUR PIN-689505. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD ELECTRICAL SECTION,MULAKUZHA P.O., PIN-689595,CHENGANNUR. 2. REJI P.MATHEW, PANKAVIL MALAYIL, MULAKUZHA P.O.,689595,CHENGANNUR. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, O/O.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA.P.O.-688001 ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED: ADDL.R4: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B.BOARD, ARAMULA, PIN 689 533 ADDL.R5. DTHE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023. ADDL.R4 & R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.9308/10 DTD. 12.7.10. ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.21034/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.12.08 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 31.12.2008 OF PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.5.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 19.5.2010 BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29.5.10 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 7.6.2010 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.6.2010 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE VICAR OF ST. MARY'S ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL, PUTHENCAVU, DATED 7.4.2008. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21034 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the second respondent are neighbours. The second respondent applied to the Kerala State Electricity Board for providing electricity connection to his residence. When steps were taken to draw the electric line through the petitioner's land he objected. The Board thereupon sought the permission of the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha to draw the electric line through the petitioner's land. The petitioner appeared before the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha and submitted Ext.P4 objections wherein he pointed out that the second respondent's near relation owns paddy fields to the east of the second respondent's land and that an electric line can be conveniently drawn through the property belonging to the second respondent's near relation, wherein two electric posts are already in existence. It appears the Additional District Magistrate posted the matter for hearing on 9.6.2010. The petitioner did not attend the hearing on the ground that his father was hospitalised and he had to leave for W.P(C).No.21034 of 2010 -:2:- Trivandrum. Though he had on 7.6.2010 sent by post an application to the Additional District Magistrate requesting for an adjournment of the hearing on the ground that he has gone over to Trivandrum to be with his ailing father, the Additional District Magistrate did not grant the adjournment, but passed Ext.P8 order holding that the electric line can be drawn through the petitioner's lands. The petitioner submits that the Additional District Magistrate has proceeded on the basis that the land belonging to the petitioner is a paddy field and that the Additional District Magistrate has not considered the feasibility of the alternate routes suggested by him. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has contended that the route suggested by the Electricity Board through the land of the petitioner is the most feasible and the least expensive one and that there is no other alternative route available for giving electricity connection to his residential building. The second respondent has however, not denied the averment of the petitioner that the second respondent's near relation owns lands to the east of the second respondent's residential building and that an electric line can be conveniently drawn through the said lands. W.P(C).No.21034 of 2010 -:3:- 3. It is evident from the observations in Ext.P8 order that the Additional District Magistrate has not considered the proposal submitted by the petitioner in Ext.P4 objections and enquired into the question whether an electric line can be conveniently drawn through the lands belonging to the second respondent's near relation as claimed by the petitioner in Ext.P4. Ext.P5 letter discloses that on the first posting date after the objections were filed, the Additional District Magistrate passed the impugned order. There is nothing on record to indicate that after the petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections dated 19.5.2010, the Additional District Magistrate got the objections verified and enquired into. In such circumstances as the beneficiary has not denied the positive assertion made by the petitioner that the near relation of the beneficiary owns paddy fields to the east of the beneficiary's property through which the electric line can be conveniently drawn, I am of the opinion that the 3rd respondent should reconsider the matter and take an expeditious decision thereon. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P8 and direct the 3rd respondent to pass revised orders in the matter after enquiring into the feasibility of the proposal set out by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and after notice to and hearing the petitioner W.P(C).No.21034 of 2010 -:4:- and the second respondent and also the persons who would be affected if the proposal set out in Ext.P4 is accepted. Final orders in the matter shall be passed expeditiously and in any event within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner or the second respondent produces a certified copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.21034 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 10th January, 2011