IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30663 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. SMT. SHEEDA, D/O. NALINI, NILACKAL THEKKETHIL, PRAYAR P.O., OACHIRA. 2. SMT. NALINI, NILACKAL THEKKETHIL, PRAYAR P.O., OACHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., OACHIRA. 4. ISAAC, S/O. SOLOMAN, KODITHARAYIL VEEDU, PRAYAR NORTH P.O.. OACHIRA, PUTHUPALLY. 5. RAJAN, S/O. PADHMANABHAN, PUTHENPURATHEKKETHARAYIL, PRAYAR NORTH P.O., OACHIRA, PUTHUPALLY. 6. JANAKI, KODITHARA PADEETTATHIL, PRAYAR NORTH P.O., OACHIRA, PUTHUPALLY. 7. ISMAIL KUNJU, S/O. HAMEEDKUTTY, PUTHENPURATHEKKETHIL VEETTIL, PRAYAR NORTH P.O., OACHIRA, PUTHUPALLY. 8. PADMAJAN, KODITHARA, PRAYAR NORTH P.O., OACHIRA,PUTHUPALLY. 9. SULATHA, MANEESH BHAVANAM, PRAYAR NORTH P.O., OACHIRA, PUTHUPALLY. 10. DEVAKI, PUTHENPURATHARAYIL VEETTIL, PRAYAR NORTH P.O., OACHIRA, PUTHUPALLY. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2,3 SRI.A.SHAFEEK FOR R4 TO 7,9 & 10 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 30663/2007. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29.8.2005. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 2.5.2006. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.9.2007. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2007. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S. 40/2006 DATED 28/1/2006. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PRESENT LINE OF THE PROPERTY. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.30663 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P4. They objected to the proposal of the electricity authority to draw the line along the pathway for giving connection to seven houses in Kodithara Colony by drawing 118 meters LT Single phase line without notice to the petitioner and without considering the objection. As seen from the order itself, it is contended on behalf of the first petitioner that there is already one line drawn over her property for giving electric connection to one person and line can be drawn from the post PM/W68 by extending 25 metres of the line which will not cause any harm to her property. It is seen further contended that the line can be drawn to Kodithara Colony from the western paddy field that will be only 100 metres and if the line is drawn as per the proposal of the third respondent, it will pass over the middle of her property. Apparently going by the order it is seen that the second petitioner has raised the same objection. After this, it is seen stated that the petitioner and the second respondent therein were present. Whatever it is, I find that the objection raised by the second petitioner was on the same lines as of the first petitioner and all that is stated is that on a perusal of the records it is seen that the proposal of the petitioner WPC.30663/2007. 2 therein is acceptable. There is no discussion regarding the alternate route, which was suggested by the objectors, namely, the petitioners. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P4 must be quashed and reconsidered. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to reconsider the matter with opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as also respondents 4 to 10. A decision will be taken in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the first respondent. It is pointed out that the line has already been drawn on 5.10.2007 and energised also. It is made clear that the line, which had been drawn and energised will be allowed to stand and only if it is found on reconsideration as aforesaid that permission ought not to have been granted, the line will be dismantled. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb