THANKAMMA KUMARAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 order issued by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Ernakulam, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, where-under an alignment proposed by the KSEB, to provide electric connection to the third respondent, has been approved, rejecting the alternatives proposed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client was asked to appear before the ADM on 22.11.2018, on which day a statement was taken from her as to her alternate suggestions, but further informing her that no written submissions are required. He says that his client, therefore, bona fide made her submissions before the ADM regarding the two alternative routes, but that in Ext.P3 order, these proposals had not even been considered. According to him, Ext.P3 order, therefore, requires to be directed to be reconsidered.

(3.) The learned standing counsel appearing for the KSEB submits, taking cue from the statement filed by him and pointing out to the sketch enclosed therein as Annexure A, that the proposed line approved in Ext.P3 is through the point A-B-C therein. He says that the lion's share of this line goes through a Panchayat road but concedes that towards the end it runs through the private property of the petitioner. He says that, as is clear from Ext.P3, the alternative routes suggested by the petitioner have also been considered, but found untenable.