High Court Kerala High Court

Mathew Abraham vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mathew Abraham vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8136 of 2010(N)


1. MATHEW ABRAHAM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ABRAHAM LINCON, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.
3. SHALINI VARGHESE, W/O. VARGHESE ABRAHAM,
4. RAHEL AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O. LATE

                        Vs



1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. K.K.MOHANAN,

4. E.V.SAJI KUMAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SETHUNATH

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

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

 Dated :12/03/2010

 O R D E R
         P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
          .....................................................................
                     WP (C) NO. 8136 OF 2010
                  ...............................................
          Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010


                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are before this Court mainly

contenting that, the first respondent is intending to

finalise the proceedings at the instance of the respondent

Board, to draw the electric line, causing much loss and

hardship to the persons like the petitioners. It is also

stated that, eventhough the first respondent has issued

Exhibit P2 and P3 notices as to hearing and site

inspection, the persons concerned who are owners of the

property, have not been given opportunity to project their

grievance. Specific reference is made to prayer No.2 in

the Writ Petition, as to such rights available to the forth

petitioner who is the Mother of the petitioners one and

two.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board.

WP (C) NO. 8136 OF 2010
2

3. Considering the nature of reliefs prayed for and

proposed to be given, this Court does not find it

necessary to issue notice to the third and forth

respondents for the time being. The first respondent is

directed to finalise the matter involved in Exhibit P2 and

P3, ensuring that, all the aggrieved parties, who are

owners of the property through which the line is

proposed to be drawn, are given an opportunity of

hearing. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of, as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

//True copy//

PA to Judge

rkc