IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9732 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 59 S/O. RAMAN NAIR, KANNANKULATHU VEETTIL, PADINJAREMURI, UDAYANAPURAM.P.O, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, KANNANKULATHU VEETTIL, PADINJAREMURI, UDAYANAPURAM.P.O, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VAIKOM. 3. GOPINATHAN, VACALPADY, VACAPADY, UDAYANAPURAM.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 9732 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the first respondent Additional District Magistrate, whereby the second respondent is permitted to draw the line through the property of the petitioner, so as to provide electric connection to the third respondent/beneficiary, without considering the specific objection and the alternate route submitted by the petitioner. 2. The averments and allegations in the Writ Petition have been sought to be rebutted by the fourth respondent by filing counter affidavit contending that the alternate route suggested by the petitioner is of about 101 meters and requires erection of 5 posts, which is stated as not feasible, pointing out that 5 different property owners have not given any consent in this regard. Similar observation has been made by the first respondent in the impugned order as well. The course and proceedings pursued by the Board have been sought to be justified by filing a counter affidavit along with a sketch produced as Ext.R2(a). W.P(C) No. 9732 of 2010-N 2 3. Referring to the content of the counter affidavit filed by the concerned respondent, it is asserted that the route now permitted by the Additional District Magistrate, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, is the most feasible one and that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is wrong and misconceived and that the Writ Petition does not call for any interference. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific objection raised by the petitioner was with reference to the alternate route as shown in the sketch/diagram given in Ext.P1 statement of objections pointing out the post No.MO. 14/4 and the route through which the line could be drawn, so as to provide connection to the third respondent. This is not a route which is stated as having the length of 101 meters requiring erection of additional posts, nor the one that is stated as passing through the property of 4 or 5 persons; asserting that the line has to be drawn through the property of only one person. It is stated that the above specific objection as to the alternate route was not considered by the first respondent/Additional District Magistrate and no discussion is there in Ext.P2, as to the above route, though some other route suggested by some other respondents is stated as referred to, W.P(C) No. 9732 of 2010-N 3 holding that the same is not feasible. Incidentally, it is to be noted that the alternate route suggested by the respondents in the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate is stated as passing through the property of 4 or 5 persons. The order impugned in the Writ Petition shows that it was only a 'suggestion' or submission made from the part of the beneficiary. There is 'no finding' in Ext.P2, that in the course of site of inspection, the first respondent got satisfied as to the correctness of the said statement. This becomes very significant in view of the fact that Ext.R2(a) sketch produced by the second respondent does not show that the line to be drawn through the paddy field will cross through the property of 4 or 5 persons, whereas the property shown therein is in the name of one Ramdas and nobody else. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the first respondent has not considered the entire aspects in detail. More so, when the specific route suggested by the petitioner in Ext.P1 has not been correctly adverted to. There is no explanation at all from the part of the second respondent. This being the position, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent, specifically adverting to the alternate route suggested by the petitioner in Ext.P1. W.P(C) No. 9732 of 2010-N 4 6. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and finalise the proceedings after hearing all the parties including the petitioner, third respondent and others concerned who are already made parties before the first respondent while passing Ext.P2; also considering the feasibility of the alternate route specifically pointed out by the petitioner in Ext.P1. This shall be finalised, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo shall be maintained till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab