IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 8022 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ABDUL LATHEEF THONDIKKADAN, AGED 60, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, THATTASSERIMADU HOUSE, NEEROLPALAM, THENHIPALAM PO., PIN 673 636. 2. AYISHABEEVI NAMBANKUNNATH, AGED 63, W/O.ABOOBAKER,MATHALAYIL VEEDU, NEEROLPALAM,THENHIPALAM PO., PIN 673 636. 3. KHADEEJA MAMMILLIPPATTU, W/O.ABDURAHIMAN, MATHALAYIL VEEDU, NEEROLPALAM,THENHIPALAM PO, PIN 673 636. BY ADV. MR.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,MALAPPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B ,PARAPPANANGADI. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHELARI,THENHIPALAM PO, PIN 673 636. 5. MAMMILIPPATTU PATHAI, D/O.MOHAMMED, METHALAYIL VEEDU, HOUSE NO.TP/VII/517 B THENHIPALAM PO, PIN 673 636. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V.PRAMOD R3 & R4 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R5 BY ADV. MR.K.P.SUDHEER, SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8022/2009 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 29/07/2008 FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DTD. 11/02/2009 IN E3.38638/2008 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/02/2009 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A): COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS PRODUCED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.8022 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. It is stated that the 5th respondent made an application for supply of electrical energy. On the apprehension that the line will be drawn through the properties of the petitioners', objections were raised by them. Thereupon, the 4th respondent moved the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued notice to the parties, considered the objections raised and passed Ext.P3 order allowing drawal of the line. Complaining that if line is drawn as allowed by Ext.P3, the same will cause extensive damage to their properties, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Yet another contention raised is that though an alternate route suggested by them was rejected, no reason whatsoever has been given in the order. 3. Although several contentions have been raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, I do not think those WP(C) No.8022/2009 -2- contentions need be adverted to for disposal of the writ petition. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that though the line is allowed to be drawn through the boundary of the properties of the petitioners, it was to avoid the damages that are certainly going to be caused that the petitioners suggested an alternate route in Ext.P2 objection filed by them. However, the suggestion so made is seen rejected in Ext.P3 stating that the same is not technically feasible or the shortest. No reason whatsoever is seen stated as to why the alternate route suggested by the petitioners is not technically feasible. In my view, the 2nd respondent, who is discharging the statutory duty under the Indian Telegraph Act, should have assigned reason when he chose to reject the proposal made by the petitioners. As Ext.P3 does not give any such reason for rejecting alternate route suggested by the petitioners, I cannot uphold Ext.P3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That Ext.P3 will stand set aside and the matter will be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent with notice to the petitioners and the other parties to the proceedings, and orders shall be passed, duly adverting to the objections raised by the petitioners. This shall be WP(C) No.8022/2009 -3- done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg