IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1850 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 64, S/O. SANKUNNY, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAPPANAL, VARAVOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JYOTHY LEKSHMI, W/O. RAMANKUTTY, VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KUMARAPPANAL, VARAVOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B, WADAKKANCEHRY. 3. CHANDRAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, VALIYAVALAP9PIL HOUSE, KUMARAPPANAL, VARAVOOR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R3 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 1850/2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DT. 6-4-2004. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 9-12-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 1850 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge Ext. P3 order of the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, permitting the 2nd respondent to draw electricity line through the petitioners' property for giving electricity connection to the 3rd respondent. The petitioners' contention in this writ petition is that the 2nd petitioner's husband was abroad at the time when Ext. P3 order was passed. Therefore, Ext. P3 order passed without hearing the 2nd petitioner's husband is vitiated is the contention of the petitioners. 2. As early as on 2-4-2009, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is categorically stated that the 2nd petitioner had appeared before the 1st respondent during the hearing representing her husband along with an advocate and it is only after hearing her that Ext. P3 order was passed. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext. P3 reads thus: “The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E.B, Wadakkancherry filed a petition under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 to issue orders permitting drawal of electric line through the property of respondents. The case was heard on 05-09-2007 & 03-09-2008. Beneficiary and respondents (1), (2), (4), (5), (6) & (7) were present. Respondents (3), (8), (9), (10) & (11) were absent. The proposal was to draw 90 mts. OH line and 30 mts. WP wire. Respondents -1 submitted that there are alternatives. The site was inspected on 25-11-2008 together with Assistant Executive Engineer. Beneficiary and respondents (1), (2), W.P.C. No. 1850/09 -: 2 :- (3) & (6) were present. The proposal is through pathway. It is lengthy and hence, uneconomic. The first alternative is 22 mts. OH line and 30 mts. WP wire. But it is across the property of respondents-2 and trees are to be cut and removed. The second alternative is 60 mts. OH line and 30 mts. WP wire. Respondent 3 has not objection in drawing the line as per second alternative. O R D E R The proposal is through pathway. It is lengthy and hence, uneconomic. The first alternative is 22 mts. OH line and 30 mts. WP wire. But it is across the property of respondent-2 and trees are to be cut and removed. Hence, both are rejected. The second alternative is 60 mts. OH line and 30 mts. WP wire. It is most convenient and feasible. Respondent 3, showed his willingness in drawing the line as per this. It is accepted as it is feasible. Assistant Executive engineer is permitted to draw the line as per 2nd alternative.” It shows that the 1st petitioner was present during the hearing. The petitioners have not chosen to file a reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, to controvert that the 2nd petitioner was present during the hearing along with her advocate. In this writ petition also, she actually represents her husband's interest, which in fact her interest also even after 7 months. In any event, from the order, I find that all the alternate routes suggested were specifically considered by the Additional District Magistrate before finding that the one proposed by the 2nd respondent was the most feasible one. The Additional District Magistrate cannot wait till the husband of the 2nd petitioner returns from abroad to decide the matter, especially when the 3rd respondent asserts that the 2nd petitioner was present for hearing along with an advocate to safeguard the interests of her husband. W.P.C. No. 1850/09 -: 3 :- In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/