NARAYANJI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent, whereby, his objection regarding the drawing of an electric line to the premises of the 3rd respondent was rejected by the 1st respondent, and the proposal submitted by the Kerala State Electricity Board for drawing of the line was accepted. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the objection of the petitioner to the proposed drawing of the line was not considered by the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P7 order.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board as also the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from perusal of Ext.P7 order that, not only was the objection of the petitioner considered, the petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of hearing before the 1st respondent, where the only submission made by the petitioner was that he had no objection to the electric line being drawn behind his property. I find, therefore, that Ext.P7 order is not vitiated by any non-compliance with the rules of natural justice or on account of any mala fides that has been established by the petitioner in the writ petition. Under such circumstances, and in the absence of anything to show that the report submitted by the Electricity Board, with regard to the suitability of the alignment proposed, was erroneous either on technical grounds or otherwise, no interference is called for with Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent. In reaching this conclusion, I am fortified by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Johny E.C v. Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam and Others,2015 5 KHC 40. The writ petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.