IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 2117 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PARAMESWARAN, S/O.K.P.E.PANIKKAR, MALAYATH VEEDU, THRIKKANDIYUR, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELETRIC SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., TIRUR. 3. DR.N.C.HYDERALI, S/O.KOYASSAN HAJI, HYFA CASTLE, THRIKKANDIYUR, TIRUR. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3 SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.2117/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF APPLICATION DT 6.9.08. P2 COPY OF NOTICE DT 7.11.08. P3 COPY OF OBJECTION DT 20.11.08. P4 COPY OF ORDER DT 14.1.09. P5 COPY OF PETITION DT 16.1.09. P6 COPY OF LETTER DT 19.1.09. P7 COPY OF REPORT DT 9.1.09. P7(A) COPY OF SKETCH DT 9.1.09. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2117 OF 2009 B ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order of the Additional District Magistrate granting permission to draw the electric line. The main complaint of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has submitted alternate routes, they are not considered. 2. A counter affidavit is filed. Reply affidavit is also filed. The main contention of the 3rd respondent is that the alternate route is not at all feasible and that consent of one person has to be obtained. 3. I find that there is no discussion regarding the alternate route. A Division Bench of this court has in Valsamma Thomas Vs. Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979] set out the manner in which the application is to be considered. I find that the impugned order does not satisfy the said requirements. Accordingly, I feel that the matter has to be redone. Ext.P4 is quashed. In view of the urgency in the matter, the petitioner, the WPC.2117/09 : 2 : 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent or their representatives will be present before the 1st respondent on 10.3.2009 and the 1st respondent will proceed to consider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE