DANIEL; MANMADHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB; SUDHAKARAN V K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are heard and decided together.

(2.) Wp(C) No. 990/2016 is filed challenging Ext.P3 order of the Additional District Magistrate by which a decision was taken to relocate the electric line drawn through the property of the 3rd respondent to a nearby public road. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that an electric post is situated in the 3rd respondent's property for the last forty years. There is a pathway on the northern side of the 3rd respondent's property and the 1st petitioner is having an item of property on the northern side of the said pathway. Petitioners and certain other persons who own properties on the western side of the 3rd respondent's property are using the said pathway. On the request of the 3rd respondent for shifting of the electric post and electric line to the northern side outside his boundary, the matter was referred to the 1st respondent, Additional District Magistrate, who passed the impugned order. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to prefer objection and the order was passed without complying with any of the statutory requirements.

(3.) Though it was initially contended that copy of the order was not served on the petitioners, during the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader had handed over a copy of the order to the petitioners, which was challenged by amending the writ petition.