KANARAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of power vested under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Contention of the petitioner is that, objection submitted before the 1st respondent, copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, has not been adverted to by the 1st respondent. In spite of specific contention that the other two routes suggested are through path ways and public road, feasibility of those routes were not considered. It is contended that length of the other two routes are not correctly mentioned in the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer.

(3.) Per contra, Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 as well as counsel appearing for 4th respondent contended that, in the report submitted before the 1st respondent, the correct position and factual situation has been enumerated and it is only after being convinced that the route 'ABCD' is the shortest and less expensive one, the permission is granted.