1. The petitioner is a resident in Chavakkad Taluk. The third respondent is residing just on the northern side of the compound of the petitioner's property. The attack in this O.P. is against Ext. P5 order passed by the 1st respondent dated 27-11-1985. The second respondent - Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Chavakkad - set in motion S.16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S.51 of the Electricity Act before the 1st respondent. That was to supply electrical energy to House No. 7/369 in Sy. No. 3/31), Orumanayur Village, the residence of the 3rd respondent. After considering the objections, the first respondent held that the objections raised by the petitioner are unsustainable. The Board was permitted to draw the electric line as proposed. The petitioner assails Ext. P5 order.

2. I heard counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the first respondent has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner in a proper perspective. The alternate route suggested by the petitioner to draw the line to the third respondent was not properly appreciated. The first respondent inspected the site. There was no notice, nor was a copy of the repo