A.T.Ahammed vs The District Magistrate on 23 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5041 of 2010(E)


1. A.T.AHAMMED, ARIMBRATHAYIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. MUKKIL SUHERA ,D/O.UNNER

5. THANKA,W/O.EDAPPATTA VELUTHARA @ SAFI

6. BABURAJ, S/O.VELUTHARA @ SAFI

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :23/02/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                       W.P.(C) No. 5041 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                    Dated this the 23rd February, 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite raising Ext.

P2 objection, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are proceeding with

further steps to cause the electric line to be drawn through the

property of the petitioner without obtaining permission of the

first respondent, who is the competent authority under the

relevant provisions of law.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2 submits that the objection preferred by the

petitioner has already been received and that the matter can

be caused to be considered by the first respondent,

simultaneously adding that the steps are being pursued to have

the same referred to the first respondent . In view of the limited

nature of the reliefs prayed for and proposed to be given, this

Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 4th to 6th

W.P.(C) No. 5041 OF 2010

2

respondents for the time being.

3. In the facts and circumstances, the respondent Nos. 2

and 3 are directed to cause Ext. P2 objection raised by the

petitioner to be referred to the first respondent within one

week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On

such an event, the first respondent shall consider the matter and

finalise the proceedings in accordance with law, after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned,

including respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The proceedings in this regard

shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within

six weeks from the date of receipt of reference as above . It is

made clear that drawal of the line through the property of the

petitioner will be subject to the orders to be passed by the first

respondent .

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk