High Court of KeralaWP(C)/28418/2014disposed of

Abdul Kareem v. The Additional District Magistrate

2015-03-12Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/21ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 28418 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.MOHAMMED, THAVALENGAL HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI P. O., PERINTHALMANNA, THROUGH P. A. HOLDER SRI. ABOOBACKER HAJI, S/O.LATE BAVA, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NOCHILAKATH HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH RESPONDENTS:

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

1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MALAPPURAM 676505

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PERINTHALMANNA-679322, MALAPPURAM DIST.

3. SRI SHAMSUDHEEN, VADAKKETHI VEEDU, OOTTY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA-679322 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB BY SRI. JAICE JACOB, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 28418 of 2014 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 :- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 8/8/2012 EXHIBIT P2 :- TRUE COPYOF THE SKETCH EXHIBIT P3 :- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 7/12/2012 EXHIBIT P4 :- THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 31348/2012 EXHIBIT P5 :- TRUE REPORT FILED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR EXHIBIT P6 :- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 21/8/2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPYO/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 28418 OF 2014 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

There has been a perfunctory disposal of the case by the first respondent evidenced by Ext.P6 order. The alternate route suggested by the petitioner has not been considered in the proper perspective. The technical feasibility and economic viability ought to have been reflected in the order. The line should be drawn in such a manner that future expansion of the building is not impeded. I do feel that the first respondent has to reconsider the issue with notice to the parties. 2.

Ext.P6 order is quashed and the matter remitted to the first respondent. The first respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and the third respondent afresh. Revised orders shall be passed within a period of two months from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd