Muhammed Rafi vs The Additional District … on 20 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi vs The Additional District … on 20 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *