T M KESAVAN Vs. ADDL DIST MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident in Chavakkad Taluk. The third respondent is residing just on the northern side of the compound of the petitioner's property. The attack in this O.P. is against Ext. P5 order passed by the 1st respondent dated 27-11-1985. The second respondent - Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Chavakkad - set in motion S.16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S.51 of the Electricity Act before the 1st respondent. That was to supply electrical energy to House No. 7/369 in Sy. No. 3/3D, Orumanayur Village, the residence of the 3rd respondent. After considering the objections, the first respondent held that the objections raised by the petitioner are unsustainable. The Board was permitted to draw the electric line as proposed. The petitioner assails Ext. P5 order.

(2.) I heard counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the first respondent has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner in a proper perspective. The alternate route suggested by the petitioner to draw the line to the third respondent was not properly appreciated. The first respondent inspected the site. There was no notice, nor was a copy of the report supplied. This is violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) There is no force in the above submission. In Ext. P5, the first respondent has referred to the objections raised by the petitioner. The alternate route suggested by the petitioner was found to be unacceptable. This is not a case where the Ist respondent has not considered the case set up or has failed to advert to the plea of the petitioner that there is an alternate route to draw the line. On facts, the 1st respondent disagreed with the plea of the petitioner. There is no illegality or other jurisdictional error in rejecting the objections of the petitioner.