1. Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of power vested under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is one among the objectors against drawing of electric line to the 4th respondent's house. In the petition filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer before the 1st respondent, three routes were suggested. The length of each route was specifically described. The petitioner and other respondents in Ext.P7 raised stiff objections with respect to the first route suggested as 'ABCD'. The 1st respondent thereupon required the Assistant Executive Engineer to conduct an inspection and to suggest alternate routes if any available. It is stated that a report was submitted to the affect that the route 'ABCD' is the most feasible and less expensive one. By accepting that report, permission was granted to draw the line through the route 'ABCD'.

2. Contention of the petitioner is that, objection submitted before the 1st respondent, copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, has not been adverted to by the 1st respondent. In spite of specific contention that the other two routes suggested are through path way