IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3804 of 2009(C)
1. MUHAMMED RAFI,
... Petitioner
2. FATHIMA BEEVI, W/O. ABDUL JABAR,
3. AZAD, S/O. ABDUL JABAR, KALLUMALA
4. ABDUL JABAR, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEF,
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
4. D.KRISHNANKUTTY,
5. SURESH BABU,
6. NADEERA, RASHEED MANZIL,
7. JOHNSON, SANJU VILASAOM,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :20/03/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 3804 OF 2009 C
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners challenge Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order
passed by the 1st respondent under section 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act.
2. I heard parties except the 7th respondent.
3. A perusal of the order would show that there are three
proposals. The order would show that the Magistrate has referred
to the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter, it is
stated that the first proposed route ABCDEFG is the most feasible
one and it passes through a foot path used by several people.
Then permission is granted. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioners, there is no discussion. He further submits that no
notice was issued to the petitioners. It is pointed out that
petitioners 1 to 3 are independent owners of properties. He relies
on Ext.P1 sketch. Of course, it is stated by the learned counsel
for the respondents that it is only a pathway and no inconvenience
is caused. Learned counsel for the petitioners then refers to route
WPC.3804/09
: 2 :
No.3 also. It is submitted that the 3rd route is the shortest route
and yet without giving any reasons, ABCDEFG route is adopted.
A Division Bench of this court has laid down the manner in which
the application to be considered in Valsamma Thomas Vs.
Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979]. Therein, the
Division Bench has held as follows.
“The order will be after considering the
objections raised by the parties and reasons
should be given by the Magistrate for accepting
or rejecting the same.”
According to the learned counsel on behalf of respondents 5
and 6, the second proposal is not to be accepted as it passes
through their property.
4. I feel that the matter is to be redone. Accordingly,
Ext.P2 is quashed. In view of the urgency expressed by the
beneficiary, the petitioners or their representatives and
respondents 4 to 6 or their representatives as also the 3rd
respondent shall be present before the 1st respondent at 11 am on
3.4.2009. The 1st respondent will, in the meantime, issue notice to
the 7th respondent informing him about the fact that the case
WPC.3804/09
: 3 :
stands posted, pursuant to the judgment of this court, on 3.4.2009.
After hearing the parties or their representatives, a decision will be
taken by the 1st respondent in the matter within two weeks from
3.4.2009.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
