Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appellants filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate approving the drawal of high tension line over appellants' property which is said to be a mango plantation. According to appellants, one line is already drawn over the property and another one is proposed over the property. The counsel appearing for the respondents denied the allegations by stating that one and the only line is passing over the appellants' property and towers are already installed for completing the project at the earliest. The learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Additional District Magistrate, without going into the merits of the case. 2. However, after hearing both sides what we notice is that the ADM has taken the view that the situation is beyond his control which in our view is not correct. Electric line has to be necessarily drawn by making it a straight line, as far as possible keeping the length to the minimum and causing least inconvenience to land owners. 3. Necessarily, lines will have to be drawn, if possible over marshy and paddy land and it should be done by reducing the inconveniences to the least number of land owners and the damage should be reduced to the minimum possible. Appellants have a specific case that if the line to be drawn is started from ahead of the proposed location, the length can be reduced thereby avoiding appellants' property. Counsel for the respondents submits that the route of the line was fixed by keeping in mind the adverse effect of the line on the building owners. 4. From the map produced by the learned counsel we feel the length of the line certainly could have been reduced, if earnest efforts were made by installing the towers at point '203' or '204'. This Court cannot conduct local enquiry to see whether appellants grievance could be redressed without causing delay for completion of the project. However, we feel one opportunity can be given to the appellants to redress their grievance if there is any genuine avoidable problem by referring the matter to the District Collector who will reconsider the decision taken by the ADM. We, accordingly, implead the District Collector, Palakkad as additional respondent and direct him to look into the grievance of the appellants in consultation with respondents 3 and 4. We, accordingly, implead the District Collector, Palakkad as additional respondent and direct him to look into the grievance of the appellants in consultation with respondents 3 and 4. Since the line has to be drawn urgently, the District Collector is directed to take a decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after considering the views of respondents 3 and 4. 5. Respondents are directed to stop drawing of the line over appellants' property for two weeks. If the lines are drawn, the respondents are free to energise the line. 6. The writ appeal is disposed of modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the above extent. Issue copy of judgment today itself.