Kerala High Court
Muhammed vs The Additional District Magistrate on 23 September, 2020
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942
WP(C).No.19575 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED
AGED 93 YEARS
S/O. SAITHALI,KAKKATTIL HOUSE, THAVALANGAL, KULAMBA,
ARIPA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 101
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
K.S.E.B.,ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PULAMANTHOLE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRCT-679 323
3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY-695 004
4 K.HUSSAIN,
S/O. KUNHI MUHAMMED, KALLAN KUNNAN HOUSE,
THAVALENGAL ,KULAMBA, ARIPRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRCT-679
324
BY ADV.SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR, SC
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.RAVIKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.19575 of 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Additional District Magistrate passed under the Telegraph Act, whereby the District Magistrate rejected the objection raised by the petitioner against the drawing of an electric line to the property of the 4th respondent. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the objection preferred by the petitioner with regard to the proposed route, by referring to an alternate route proposed by the petitioner, was not considered by the 1st respondent.
On a perusal of Ext.P4 order, however, I find that the objection raised by the petitioner to the drawing of a line through his property, so as to enable the supply of electricity to the premises of the 4th respondent, was considered by the 1st respondent and it was after consideration of the feasibility of the various alternative routes that the 1st respondent found that the route suggested by the Electricity Board was the more feasible one for providing electric connection to the premises of the 4th respondent. In the absence of any specific allegation of malafides or of non-compliance with the rules of natural justice in WP(C).No.19575 of 2020 3 passing Ext.P4 order, I am of the view that Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent does not require any interference in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In reaching this conclusion, I am fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Johny E.C v. Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam and Others [2015 (5) KHC 40]. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/23.9.2020 WP(C).No.19575 of 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR AND SKETCH ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 3.7.2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED NIL EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04.09.2020 ALONG WITH SKETCH OF ALTERNATE ROUTE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2020 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE