IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36573 of 2005(D)
1. S.PONNIAH, HOUSE NO.16/367,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. SMT.NIRMALA, W/O.BHASKARAN,
3. BALASUBRAHMANIAN, CHIRAKKAD,
4. RAMAN, S/O.RAMU, 16/408(1),
5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :28/05/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 36573 OF 2005 D
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 which is an order passed
under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act granting
permission to the respondent Electricity Board to draw electric
line for giving connection to respondents 3 and 4. I heard the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The contention of the petitioner as projected through
his counsel Shri N. Raghuraj is that when the petitioner had
objected to the drawing of the line and had suggested alternative
proposal, the first respondent was duty bound to consider the
objection. It is his case that there was no site inspection. He has
also relied on Ext.P1 sketch to contend that respondents 2 to 4
have direct access to the Municipal road on the west of the
property. In the order it is stated that taking into consideration
the aspects involved in the case, there is not much hardship and
it will promote better relationship between the parties. I would
WPC. 36573/05 D 2
think that the matter has to be reconsidered and a fresh decision
taken. It is brought to my notice that already the line has been
drawn. Even though the matter is to be reconsidered, I make it
clear that the line will not be dismantled. A decision has to be
taken. Accordingly, for the purpose of taking a decision, Ext.P7
is quashed and the first respondent, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4,
shall take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
If the petitioner requests for site inspection, an appropriate
decision thereon shall be taken by the first respondent. The
parties will be permitted to produce such materials as they are
advised to produce.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy//
PS to Judge