1. To what extent interference is possible or warranted in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging sustainability of the order passed by the Statutory Authority/Addl.District Magistrate invoking the relevant provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act, with regard to drawing of electric lines through the property of the third parties, is the issue involved in this case.

2. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the 7th respondent enabling the 4th respondent to draw 400 K.V. High Tension electric line passing through Vengola / Valayanchirangara / Rayamangalam village areas in Kunnathunadu Taluk, in Ernakulam district through the route proposed by the 4th respondent. The case of the petitioners is that Ext.P4 alternate route suggested by them is much more economical and feasible than the route proposed by the 4th respondent and that if the line is drawn through the alternate route proposed by the petitioners, it will mostly pass through the uncultivated paddy fields, requiring only about 400 rubber trees to be cut and removed; whereas if the route, specified by the 4th respondent and confirmed by the 7th respondent vide Ext.P11 is implemented, nearly 5000 yielding rubber trees belonging to small agriculturists will have to be cut and removed, besides adversely affecting 40 residential buildings in the area.

3. A totally different version has been put forth by the 4th respondent, referring to Ext.R4(1) sketch produced along with their counter affidavit. It is seriously alleged by the petitioners that the 7th respondent, who conducted the spot inspection and was all along with the petitioners, giving instruction to the 4th respondent to suggest an 'alternate route' in the course of spot inspection conducted on 08.01.2010, has arbitrarily taken a `U' turn, referring to the letter/report of the same date, i.e., 08.01.2010 sent by the 4th respondent and has confirmed the route proposed by the 4th respondent, as per Ext.P11 passed on the very same day. It is also averred that the 7th respondent happened to be transferred out from the office on that day itself and hence suspect some foul play.

4. As a matter of fact, the petitioners and some others had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) Nos.27172 and 27195 of 2009 for similar reliefs. After hearing both the sides, the said Writ Petitions were disposed of as per Ext. P6 judgment, directing the statutory authority to consider and pass orders under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, after considering the objections preferred by the petitioners therein, affording an opportunity of being heard to their representative as well as the 4th respondent/the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited as specified. Pursuant to the above verdict, a site inspection was conducted by the 7th respondent/statutory authority on 19.11.2009 and the route proposed by the respondent Corporation and the alternate route suggested by the petitioners were examined . On the basis of the site inspection, the respondent Corporation was directed to file a report regarding the feasibility of the alternate proposal, pursuant to which, Ext.P8 report dated 07.12.2009 was submitted by the Power Grid Corporation, giving a comparative study on the feasibility aspects, along with a sketch . Thereafter, Ext.P7 notice of hearing was issued, informing the date of hearing as 22.12.2009. Hearing was conducted on the said date, as well as on 07.01.2010, when the petitioners requested for one more site inspection, stating that the respondent Corporation had not examined all the portions of the alternate route suggested by the petitioners. Acceding to the request of the petitioners, one more site inspection was conducted by the 7th respondent on 08.01.2010.

5. During the course of the said subsequent inspection held on 08.01.2010, some suggestions were made from the part of the petitioners, on which, an urgent report was called for by the 7th respondent. P