IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8136 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MATHEW ABRAHAM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE IYPE ABRAHAM, VATTAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PULAYAN PARA, VATTUPPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ABRAHAM LINCON, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE IYPE ABRAHAM, VATTAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PULAYAN PARA, VATTUPPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SHALINI VARGHESE, W/O. VARGHESE ABRAHAM, AGED 40 YEARS, VATTAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PULAYAN PARA, VATTUPPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. RAHEL AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O. LATE IYPE ABRAHAM, VATTAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PULAYAN PARA, VATTUPPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VADASSERIKKARA. WP(C).No. 8136 of 2010 2 3. K.K.MOHANAN, KUTTIYIL VEEDU, PULAYAN PARA, VATTUPPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. E.V.SAJI KUMAR, EDAYILEMURIYIL, PULAYAN PARA, VATTUPPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R2 BYADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ..................................................................... WP (C) NO. 8136 OF 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are before this Court mainly contenting that, the first respondent is intending to finalise the proceedings at the instance of the respondent Board, to draw the electric line, causing much loss and hardship to the persons like the petitioners. It is also stated that, eventhough the first respondent has issued Exhibit P2 and P3 notices as to hearing and site inspection, the persons concerned who are owners of the property, have not been given opportunity to project their grievance. Specific reference is made to prayer No.2 in the Writ Petition, as to such rights available to the forth petitioner who is the Mother of the petitioners one and two. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board. WP (C) NO. 8136 OF 2010 2 3. Considering the nature of reliefs prayed for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the third and forth respondents for the time being. The first respondent is directed to finalise the matter involved in Exhibit P2 and P3, ensuring that, all the aggrieved parties, who are owners of the property through which the line is proposed to be drawn, are given an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of, as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge rkc