IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36711 of 2008(U)
1. SMT.RADHAMONY.L., VAZHAYIL THEKKETHIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
4. SMT. THANKAMANY, VALIAPARAMBIL,
5. SRI.KESAVAN, VAZHZYIL HOUSE
6. SRI.VIJAYAN, VAZHYIL THEKKETHIL
For Petitioner :SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.36711 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order
passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. It is stated that the 4th respondent applied for electricity
connection. Initial proposal was to draw the line through a pathway,
and that was objected by the 5th respondent and thereupon an
application was made to the 2nd respondent. During the course of
hearing, it was suggested that the line could be drawn through the
properties of the 6th respondent.
3. Accordingly, notice was issued to the 6th respondent.
But, however, he did not appear or contest, and therefore, the
second proposal to draw the line through the properties indicated
as that of the 6th respondent was approved in Ext.P3.
4. What the petitioner contends is that the 6th respondent is
her estranged husband, who is none other than the brother of the
4th respondent, who is the beneficiary. According to the petitioner,
WP(C) No.36711/2008
-2-
the property, through which the line was permitted to be drawn and
which was assumed to be that of the 6th respondent, is that of the
petitioner and Ext.P1 is the title deed. Ext.P1(a) is also referred to
as the receipt evidencing payment of land tax payable in respect of
the land covered by Ext.P1. It is stated that the 6th respondent
deliberately kept away from the proceedings and the petitioner was
not issued any notice. According to the petitioner, the 2nd
respondent was misled to pass the order without hearing the
affected parties.
5. Although notice was issued in this writ petition and
service has been completed, respondents 4, 5 & 6 have not entered
appearance. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent states that it was on the basis of the information made
available to respondents 2 & 3 that notice was issued to the 6th
respondent. It is also pointed out that on the strength of Ext.P3,
line was drawn and supply was given with effect from 24/11/2008.
6. Irrespective of the disputed facts, it is the admitted
position that the petitioner was not heard by the 2nd respondent
before passing Ext.P3. Ext.P1 shows that she is the owner of the
land in question. Therefore, even if the 6th respondent is her
WP(C) No.36711/2008
-3-
husband, still the petitioner, being the owner and affected party,
ought to have been given notice. Having not done so, the
proceedings leading to Ext.P3 cannot be upheld. Be that as it may,
now that having regard to the fact that the line has already been
drawn and energised with effect from 24/11/2008, I do not want to
set aside the order, and create a vacuum.
7. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not
heard before Ext.P3 was passed, it is directed that the 2nd
respondent shall reconsider the application made by the 4th
respondent with notice to other parties to the proceedings, and
also to the petitioner, and pass orders thereon, taking into account
the objections that are raised by the petitioner also. Depending
upon the decision to be so taken, if necessary, orders revising
Ext.P3 will be issued by the 2nd respondent. This exercise shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two
months of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg
