IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20909 of 2008(L)
1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, 51 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/
... Respondent
2. THE KSEB, REP. BY THE ASST.EXECUTIVE
3. NARAYANAN NAIR, PLAPPALLIL , PUNNALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :03/11/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 20909 OF 2008 L
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order
passed under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. There is no
appearance for the 3rd respondent though notice is served.
3. In Ext.P5, it is stated as follows:
“Objections were called for and heard
all the concerned. Also inspected the site.
It was found that the alternate route(Route
No.II) is better than the route No.I. It does
not cause any imminent danger to human
life and beneficial enjoyment of the
property.”
On a perusal of the order, I am of the view that the
matter is to be reconsidered. Accordingly, writ petition is
disposed of as follows.
WPC.20909/08
: 2 :
Ext.P5 is quashed. The 1st respondent(Additional
District Magistrate, Kollam) will consider the matter afresh and
take a decision in accordance with law with notice to the
petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE