IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25387 of 2009(P)
1. D.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. I.V.MANOJNA, AGED 50 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. K.R.CHANDRABABU, KALARICKAL,
4. SREEDHARAN, KALARIKKAL, VALAMANGALAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :05/10/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.25387 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st
respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act giving
permission to the 2nd respondent draw electricity line over the property
of the petitioners for giving electricity connection to the 3rd
respondent’s house. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners
is that the 2nd petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P6 order.
They have a further contention that the 1st petitioner had suggested
three alternate routes, feasibility of which has not been considered by
the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P6 order.
2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the KSEB
also. He does not dispute the fact that the 2nd petitioner was not heard
before passing Ext.P6 order.
3. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 has been issued in
violation of the principles of natural justice in so far as the 2nd
petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed. The 1st
respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after issuing notice to
all concerned including the petitioners and pass fresh orders as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While doing so, the 1st
respondent shall consider the feasibility of the alternate routes
suggested by the petitioners.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
2