Challenge is against Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of power vested under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 objected drawing of electric line through their properties for providing connection to the 4th respondent's residence. The matter was referred for adjudication by the 2nd respondent. While examining the issue, the 2nd respondent found that the 3rd respondent had suggested two routes. One is crossing through property of the petitioner and it requires drawing of 61 metres of overhead line and 15 metres of weather proof wire. The other route suggested is having a length of 43 meters of overhead line and 14 metres of weather proof wire. It is found that the 2nd route is objectionable to respondents 5 and 6, because it will cross the pathway leading to their house. From Ext.P1 it is evident that, after hearing of all the parties, the 2nd respondent had directed the 3rd respondent to examine feasibility of the first route alone. The 3rd respondent reported that if the line as suggested in the 1st route is drawn through boundary of the petitioner's property, it will not cause any considerable damage. Accepting such suggestion made by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent had permitted drawing of the line through the property of the petitioner. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent had failed in examining feasibility of the 2nd route suggested. It is specifically pointed out, after referring to Annexure R3(a) sketch produced along with the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, that the 2nd route suggested will only cross the pathway of respondents 5 and 6 by an extent of 15 meters.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 contended that interference with the impugned order by this court in exercise of power vested under Article 226 is very limited. He has relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in Valsamma Thomas V.
Additional District Magistrate (1997 (2) KLT 979) in order to contend that interference is warranted only if the order passed by the District Magistrate is highly perverse.
4. Here is a case where the 2nd respondent had failed to consider feasibility of both the routes and to compare the such feasibility based on the length, cost and inconveniences. It is evident that the 2nd respondent had directed the 3rd respondent only to examine feasibility of one of the routes suggested. Further, without any independent evaluation, the 2nd respondent had accepted the suggestion made by the 3rd respondent. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that there is an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction vested on the 2nd respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
5. While adjudicating upon the objection, on the basis of reference made under Section 16(1), it is incumbent on the part of the District Magistrate to examine feasibility of drawing the line through different routes. The comparison with respect to the feasibility of different routes suggested is absolutely necessary. Since the 2nd respondent had failed to exercise the jurisdiction in a legal and proper manner as mentioned above, the order is liable to be held as unsustainable.
6. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 2nd respondent. Therefore this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording further opportunity of personal hearing to all the parties concerned, and also after conducting site inspection if found necessary. Fresh orders shall be passed in the matter at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn