RADHAMONY L Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the writ petition is against Ext. P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) IT is stated that the 4th respondent applied for electricity connection. Initial proposal was to draw the line through a pathway, and that was objected by the 5th respondent and thereupon an application was made to the 2nd respondent. During the course of hearing, it was suggested that the line could be drawn through the properties of the 6th respondent.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, notice was issued to the 6th respondent. But, however, he did not appear or contest, and therefore, the second proposal to draw the line through the properties indicated as that of the 6th respondent was approved in ext. P3.