The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 order dated 18.03.2011 of the 2nd respondent. That order was passed by the 2nd respondent on a reference made to him by the 3rd respondent before whom the petitioner had submitted an objection in connection with the drawing of a line to the residential house of the neighbour of the petitioner. In the objections preferred by the petitioner, it was pointed out that the steps taken by the Electricity Board to draw the line through the middle of the petitioner’s property would adversely affect the petitioner in connection with the enjoyment of his property and there was an alternative route which involved only a slightly longer distance, of approximately 8 metres, by which the line could be drawn through the boundaries of the properties belonging to three other persons in the locality. It is seen that, pursuant to the objections submitted by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the 2nd respondent who called for reports from the Tahsildar of the area. The Tahsildar, in turn, asked the Village Officer to file a report after conducting a physical verification of the property. Ext.P3 is the report submitted by the Village Officer which would show that he W.P.(C) No. 12462/2011 -2-
recommended the drawing of the line through the boundaries of three other persons in the locality, rather than drawing the line through the property of the petitioner. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P4 order, finding that the original proposal of the Board, to draw the line through the property of the petitioner, was the most feasible one and rejected the objections of the petitioner. As already noted, Ext.P4 order is impugned in the Writ Petition.
2. I have heard Sri. Johnson Gomez, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the 1st and 3rd respondent. I have heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 and 5.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that in Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent, there is no reason forthcoming as to why the report of the Tahsildar, with regard to the alignment of the line to be drawn, did not have to be preferred as against the report of the Assistant Engineer of the Board. While it was open to the 2nd respondent to exercise his discretion in the matter W.P.(C) No. 12462/2011 -3-
and render a finding as to the most appropriate alignment for drawing the line in question, it was also incumbent upon him, as an administrative authority, to provide reasons in support of his findings in Ext.P4 Order. Inasmuch as this is not seen done in Ext.P4 order, I am constrained to infer that there has been no application of mind by the 2nd respondent while passing Ext.P4 order. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner in the matter. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE jjj