IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19436 of 2009(Y)
1. DAMODARAN, VIZHASSERIL,
... Petitioner
2. SHANMUGHAM, VIZHASSERIL,
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
4. MANCHU, CHERUMANNIL KIZHAKKATHIL
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.19436 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are the owners of the property through which the
2nd respondent proposes to draw electric line for giving connection to
the 4th respondent. Since the petitioners objected to the same, the 2nd
respondent approached the 1st respondent, who passed Ext.P4 order
permitting the 2nd re respondent to draw line through the petitioners’
properties. The petitioners are challenging the same on the ground
that there are other feasible routes available, which was brought to the
attention of the 1st respondent, who has not considered the same, as
is evident from Ext.P4.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, in
which the contentions of the petitioners are sought to be refuted.
3. I have heard both sides.
4. On a perusal of Ext.P4 order, I feel that the order has not
been passed in accordance with the proposition of law laid down by
this Court Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997
(2) KLT 979]. When a party objects to drawing of electric lines through
his property and points out an alternate route, the Additional District
Magistrate has a duty to consider and state in his order, as to why that
alternate route is not more feasible than the route suggested by the
2
Electricity Board. Absolutely, no such consideration is evident from
Ext.P4. On that ground alone, Ext.P4 is liable to be quashed. I do so.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board
submits that for considering the feasibility of the alternate routes
suggested by the petitioners, the owners of the properties through
which lines have to be alternatively drawn have also to be heard.
In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the entire matter including
the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners after hearing all
parties who would be affected by the alternate routes also. I make it
clear that the orders to be passed by the Additional District Magistrate
shall be a speaking order dealing with every aspect of the case and
giving reasons as to why the alternate routes are not more feasible
than the one suggested by the Board.
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE