IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13115 of 2008(J)
1. C.V.SHANKARAN, S/O.CHAMI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUNDAN, S/O.VELU, PETTIKADUPARAMBU VEEDU
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :11/08/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No.13115 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order by which
permission has been granted to draw line using the property of the petitioner
for giving connection to the first respondent. Though the first respondent is
served with notice, there is no appearance for the first respondent. One of
the contentions of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an
opportunity.
2. Counter affidavit is filed, wherein it is stated that the first
hearing date was 10.3.2008. Notice was served on the petitioner by
affixture and Ext.R3(a) is the report of the Village Officer. The next
hearing date was 26.3.2008. It is stated in the order that the petitioner was
not present on both the hearings. Apparently reliance is placed on the report
of the Tahsildar that the electric line is to be drawn through the boarder
from west to east after erecting two posts to effect the service connection to
the beneficiary.
3. Learned Standing Counsel no doubt supports the order. But
I feel that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to raise whatever
objections he has and that should be considered and a decision should be
WPC. 13115/2008. 2
taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and first
respondent. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the first
respondent is not having connection for a long period of time and therefore
the matter has to be disposed of at the earliest. Accordingly, the writ
petition is disposed of as follows:
Ext.P3 is quashed for the reason that the petitioner was not
given an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner will be present before the third
respondent at 11 a.m on 28.8.2008. The third respondent will thereafter
proceed to hear the parties. The second respondent will also be present
before the third respondent on 28.8.2008. No further notice need be issued
to the petitioner and the second respondent and notice shall be issued to the
first respondent informing about the posting on 28.8.2008. Thereafter, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, a decision will be taken in
accordance with law within three weeks from the date of hearing.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb