IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 31476 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P. MATHEW, COYAMKODE P.O., CHAYOTH, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), KASARGOD, VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NILESHWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMED FAROOK, S/O. THRIKKOT USMAN, KOYAPPARA, KUNHIMANGALAM P.O., 4. N.USMAN, KOYAPPARA, KUNHIMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R3 & 4 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 31476 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the Magistrate, granting permission. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of third respondent, besides learned government Pleader and standing counsel. Though service has been completed on third and fourth respondents, no appearance for additional 5th respondent. 3. Two proposals were made. Apparently, the first proposal was found inconvenient and causing loss. Then the second proposal involves drawing of line through the pathway of the property of the petitioner and through the boundary of Falcon Polymers, property of sri T.P.Mathew. It is specifically stated that only the pathway portion of the property of the petitioner is to be crossed and thereafter it passes through the side of the property of Falcon Polymers and then through the compound wall of the two properties. It is stated that in the eastern side, a Wp(c)31476/2008 2 small portion passes through the property of T.P.Mathew. Falcon Polymers, represented by third and fourth respondents, has stated that they orally agree to the proposal. The said proposal is found to be most convenient and suitable. Therefore both proposals are seen considered and reasons are given for not accepting the first proposal. In such circumstances, in judicial review, I do not think it is for this court to substitute its view with that of the authority. Learned counsel for third and fourth respondents reiterates on behalf of Falcon Polymers that they have no objection. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the writ petition. Writ petition fails. The same is dismissed. I.A.1920 of 2009 is also dismissed. K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE lgk