IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL, 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA, 1931 WP(C).No. 12605 of 2009 PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. AYYAPPAN,S/O.RAMAN,CHITTAYIL HOUSE, MANALODY, NILAMBUR. 2. SUHRA.P,W/O.SEETHI,KATTUMUNDA HOUSE, MANALODY, NILAMBUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,KSEB,NILAMBUR. 3. SMT.FATHIMA.P.T,D/O.MOHAMMED POOVANTHODIKA,MANALODY,NILAMBUR. 4. SRI.IBRAHIM.M,S/O.CHERIYA MOHAMMED, MAVUNGAL HOUSE,MANALODI, NILAMBUR. R1 AND R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.VIPIN DAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 12605 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners herein preferred this writ petition against the drawing of electric line through their property on the strength of Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent. According to the petitioners, they suggested two alternative ways for the drawing of electric line for giving electric supply to respondents 3 and 4. According to them, if the first suggestion is approved, a straight electric line can be drawn from the electric post situated on the PWD road through the properties of one Bapputy and Ayishumma. According to the petitioners, the said Ayishumma had already given consent for drawing electric line in such a way. It is the further case of the petitioners that the line can be drawn with the help of erecting one pole having the distance of 42 meters without causing any obstruction or destruction to the property of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, their objections were not properly considered by the first respondent while passing Ext.P5 order. It is also pointed out that the second respondent has already made up his mind to give connection WP(C) NO.12605 of 2009 :-2-: to the beneficiaries even before passing Ext.P5 order by the first respondent and in order to substantiate their contention, Ext.P6 is produced. Thus, according to the petitioners, their objections were not properly considered and the objections were overruled in a mechanical way. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B. 3. I am not proposed to interfere with Ext.P5 order. But, from Ext.P5, it is not discernible as to whether at the time of the site inspection, the presence of the respondents were secured so as to enable them to point out the objections. Therefore, it is only just and proper to direct the first respondent to consider the objection of the petitioners and also their alternative suggestion. It is open to the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 and to pass fresh orders with reasons after having considered the objections and the suggestions pointed out by the petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 and to pass fresh orders after having considered the objections of the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent within two weeks from today upon which the WP(C) NO.12605 of 2009 :-3-: first respondent shall pass fresh orders within one month thereafter and till then, the drawing of electric line shall be deferred. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ WP(C) NO.12605 of 2009 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: -3-2009 WP(C) NO.12605 of 2009 :-5-: