IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1272 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1220/2009 Dated 17/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONERS ------------------------- RUKHIYA BEEVI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.SULAIMAN P.K., PEEDIKAYIL, ALAPRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, ALAPRA MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, ALAPPRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.No.1272 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Sri.Babu Cherukara takes notice for the 3rd respondent. By consent of parties at the admission stage itself the writ appeal is finally heard. 2. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The issue pertains to the drawing of an electric line. The beneficiary is the 3rd respondent. The matter was considered by the District Magistrate leading to Ext.P5 order. The main contention taken by the writ petitioner is that the District Magistrate has not considered all the relevant aspects. The main relevant factor pointed out by the writ petitioner was that an alternate, which was more feasible and more economic, route was available for drawing the line and hence it was not necessary to cause any heart burn to the petitioner. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the writ appeal has been filed. Though several contentions are taken by the parties, on a perusal of Ext.P5 impugned order we find that there is no consideration at all on the alternate proposal made by the writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion W.A.No.1272/2009 -:2:- as to the merits of the case we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, quash Ext.P5 and dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent District Magistrate to consider the proposals afresh after conducting a local inspection by himself with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents, also on the alternate proposals made by the petitioner and pass a considered order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Learned Standing Counsel apprehends that in case some steps have been taken, the Board may not be put to any difficulty. We do not think that much expense is involved in the process even if any steps have been taken because the line is only for a short distance. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. --------------------------- W.A.No.1272 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 19th June, 2009