IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31107 of 2009(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KOCHURAMAN, AGED 75 YEARS, SON OF LATE GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT PUNNAVILA VEEDU, KURMMANA CHERRY, MUKATHALA, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION KANNANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 4. BABY, THODIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUKHATHALA, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ARAVINDA KUMAR ADVS. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2&3 MR. AJAYA KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31107 of 2009(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.3.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.5.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO. K.DIS/23503/09/M4 DATED 27.10.2009. EXT.P4 - COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER CLAIM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO. 527 OF 2009. EXT.P5 - COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A) - COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 527/2009 BEFORE MUNSIFFS COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.R4(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS 527/2009 BEFORE MUNSIFFS COURT, KOLLAM. EXTR4(C) - TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN OS NO. 527/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFFS COURT, KOLLAM. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 31107 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which respondents 2 and 3 proposes to draw electric lines for giving electricity connection to the 4th respondent. The 1st respondent has, by Ext.P3 order, permitted respondents 2 and 3 to draw the line through the petitioner's property overruling the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order. The ground raised by the petitioner against Ext.P3 is that Ext.P3 is a totally non speaking order and it does not on the face of it show that the Additional District Magistrate has considered the contention of the parties on merits. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which she has taken pains to explain why the proposed route is the most feasible route. I am of opinion that despite the contention of the 4th respondent, Ext.P3 does not on the face of it show that the Additional District Magistrate has considered the contention of the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 order is bereft of any reasoning whatsoever. It does not even mention the alternate route suggested by the W.P(C) No. 31107 of 2009 -2- petitioner. The Division Bench of this court has as early as in 1997, in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997(2) KLT 979] laid down parameters of the jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate, wherein it has been categorically held that the order of the Additional District Magistrate should on the face of it show that the alternate route suggested by the objector has been properly considered. Since Ext.P3 does not on the face of it show that the route suggested by the petitioner has been duly considered, I am of opinion that Ext.P3 is unsustainable and accordingly Ext.P3 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after hearing all parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I remind the 1st respondent that his order shall, on the face of it show that he has considered the alternate route suggested by the petitioner and shall state as to why that alternate route suggested by the petitioner is not a feasible route. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs