IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5998 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AMBIKA.S, PULIKKAKONATHU KARTHU VILASAM, AYRAKUZHI.P.O, CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KADAKKAL. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHITHARA. 5. ARIFA BEEVI, PALAMOOTTIL VEEDU, KANJIRATHUMOODU, AYIRAKUZHI.P.O, CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 & R4 SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.5998/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGHT SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 11.08.2008. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A4-39169/08/KDS DATED 29.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.02.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.02.2009 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 5998 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the electric line has been caused to be drawn across the property of the petitioner, virtually over the building, without considering the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, eventhough objections were filed on time and two alternate routes were pointed out, so as to provide electric connection to the 5th respondent, it is simply given a 'go-bye' and the 2nd respondent concluded the proceedings in a hasty manner passing Ext.P3, which is sought to be intercepted. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents; besides the learned counsel for the 5th respondent/ beneficiary as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, causing of the objections to be considered with reference to the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner, will in no way cause any prejudice to the 5th respondent/beneficiary, who has already been given the electric connection as on date. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is set aside and the 2nd 2 WP(C) No. 5998/2009 respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass final orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned; with specific reference to the feasibility of the alternate routes pointed out from the part of the petitioner and the same shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, status-quo as on date will continue. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc