VASU Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt. Tatha Kalikutty, being not made a party, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, registered an application for electric connection with the 2nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer on 6.4.1996 and she was allotted consumer No. 8319. The proposed electric line to her residence was to pass through a portion of the property of the appellant, objector. The objection was referred to the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha who by proceedings dated 4.6.1997 overruled the objection and accorded sanction for the drawal of electric line. The appellant challenged the said order Ext. P3 before this Court which led to Ext. P4 judgment dated 12.2.1998. Though a contention regarding the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent Additional District Magistrate was raised by the appellant before this Court, in Ext. P4 judgment the learned Single Judge reserving the right to the appellant to take up the said contention later if required, set aside Ext. P3 proceedings dated 4.6.1997 of the Additional District Magistrate and remanded the matter to the same authority for reconsideration of his order. The learned Single Judge directed the said authority to particularly consider the feasibility of the alternate proposal suggested by the appellant.

(2.) Therefore, the 1st respondent Additional District Magistrate issued Ext. P1 proceedings dated 17.6.1998. The 1st respondent considered the various objections of the appellant and came to the following conclusion:

(3.) The learned Single Judge elaborately dealt with the various contentions and apprehensions of the petitioner appellant and dismissed the Original Petition by judgment dated 5.7.2000. On the question of jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate, the learned Single Judge took the view that for one thing the question of jurisdiction had not been raised by the appellant before the Additional District Magistrate and that he had participated in the proceedings of enquiry by the said authority, and secondly, the said issue is covered by a direct decision of this Court on the point in Mathai v. K.S.E. Board ( 1995 (2) KLT 496 ). The learned Single Judge also observed that the affected party, viz. Smt. Thatha Kalikutty was not impleaded in the Original Petition. In spite of all these, learned Single Judge considered the case in detail on the merits, with particular reference to the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, and came to the conclusion that it is a speaking order dealing with all the contentions raised by the appellant before the said authority, that there was no error of jurisdiction or other errors meriting interference under Art.226 of the Constitution and that all relevant factors have been considered and no irrelevant factors had crept in. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed the Writ Appeal.