← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/28048/2014disposed of

C.R.Anil v. The Additional District Magistrate

2015-01-12Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/22ND POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 28048 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- C.R.ANIL, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 32 YRS., CHENDRAN HOUSE, THAZHATHARA, POST THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS:

------------------------

1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, ALATHIYOOR, POST ALATHIYOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676 102.

3. SASIDHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VATTAKANDI HOUSE, POST ALATHIYOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 102. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.AJITH (PALAKKAD) R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAHEEN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB BY ADV. SRI. JAICE JACOB, SC, KSEB BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 28048 of 2014 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24.3.2014 EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,DATED 22.3.2014 EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 29.5.2014 EXT.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE THREE DIFFERENT ROUTES.

/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 28048 OF 2014 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 order according sanction to draw electricity supply line in terms of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is impugned. Ext.P5 order merely reflects the three proposals suggested by the second respondent and the acceptance of one among them. No reasons have been stated as to why the first proposal is to be accepted ignoring the other proposals suggested by the second respondent.

2.

The petitioner has a case that the route GHC is more feasible and straight whereas the route ABC is in a zig zag manner (This is with reference to Ext.R2(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit). The mere fact that GHC is a longer route is not a reason enough to reject the second proposal which is acceptable to the petitioner. Other interested parties may have also to be heard in case the route GHC is to be preferred to the route ABC.

WP(C) No. 28048/2014 3.

I quash Ext.P5 order and remit the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration. The owners of the property along which GHC line is suggested shall also be heard. Final orders shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of two months.

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd