BALAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALAPPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this matter is posted for admission, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging Ext. P6 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha. An electricity line had to be drawn to the residence of the 5th respondent. The proposed line would cross the property of the petitioner. There was objection from the side of the petitioner. The matter was referred to the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. Petitioner raised objections before the Additional District Magistrate and contended that the electricity line can be drawn through other alternate routes which are also suggested in Ext. P1 objection. Petitioner also filed an application dated 23/05/2007 (Ext. P3) requesting that a spot inspection may be made to ascertain whether the objections raised by the petitioner are sustainable or not. The Additional District Magistrate disposed of the matter as per Ext. P6 order approving the proposal. However, none of the contentions raised by the petitioner has been dealt within Ext. P6 order. It is not clear whether the request made by the petitioner for a spot inspection was allowed or not.

(3.) In view of the non consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner, Ext. P6 order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition.