Kerala High Court
Salim V.K vs The Additional District Magistrate on 8 December, 2025
WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:94797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SALIM V.K.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O KUNJALI HAJI, VARANGODAN HOUSE, OORAKAM,
KARITHODU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676519
2 HARINANDAN SANGEETHA,
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O ASHOK KUMAR, AALAMPATTA HOUSE, OORAKAM,
KARITHOD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676519
3 SAINABA,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O ABDUL RAZAK, KURUNGIL THOTTATHIL HOUSE,
MATTATHOOR P.O., PARAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 676528
4 ABDUL AZEEZE K.T.,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O MOHEMMED K.T, ANUSHA MANZIL, MELMURI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676517
5 ABDUL KAREEM P.,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O ALAVI HAJI, PARAMBAN HOUSE, ADIGARATHODI,
MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676517
6 ABDUL GAFOOR N.K.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O MOIDU HAJI, KARUYAYIL ḤOUSE, MELMURI P.O.,
ADIGARATHODI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676517
WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:94797
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE
SMT.ASWATHY BABU
SMT.GOPIKA S. NAIR
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676505
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695004
3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
TRANSMISSION CIRCLE,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF
ENGINEER, MUNDUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 676509
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
TRANSMISSION DIVISION (KSEB),EDERIKKODE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676501
5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
TRANSMISSION DIVISION (KSEB),EDERIKKODE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676501
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MELMURI VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MELMURI
P.O., PIN - 676517
BY ADV SRI.AJIT JOY
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR. GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:94797
JUDGMENT
The petitioners challenge Ext.P18 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) dated 19.09.2025 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17841 of 2025 dated 27.05.2025.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 proposed a 110 kV Substation at Vengara-Kilinakkode, along with an 8km long 110 kV Double Circuit line from Mayiladi to the Substation, to meet the urgent developmental requirements of Vengara and nearby areas and also to ensure quality power supply in Malappuram District. The route passes through the Melmuri, Pookkottoor, Panakkad, Oorakam, and Kannamangalam villages of Eranad and Tirurangadi Taluk.
3. The petitioners had initially challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate approving the alignment proposed by the KSEB, by filing W.P.(C) No.17841 of 2025. The main contention urged therein was that the Additional District Magistrate did not inspect the property, though there were varying reports submitted by the Village Officer concerned. The petitioners also relied on a report of the Deputy Chief Engineer of WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:94797 the Electricity Board, which conceded that there was an alternate route, but the same was found to be impractical and economically not feasible. Taking note of the above contentions, the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was quashed with a direction to personally inspect the site in question and pass a fresh order with notice to all the affected parties.
4. Thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate physically inspected the property with notice to all the stakeholders, and after hearing the parties, passed Ext.P18 order accepting the alignment proposed by the Board. It was found in Ext.P18 that the alternative route suggested by the petitioners incurs 40% more cost, that 8 quarries were functioning and that the daily maintenance also will be affected if the alignment is shifted to the suggested terrain.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alternate routes have not been considered, and the mere fact that they incur more expenses cannot be a reason for not accepting the same, more so when there were around 350 families directly affected by the alignment in question. It is also submitted that the Village Officer's report indicates the existence of houses and small WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:94797 holdings, as well as the difficulties that would arise if the Board were to proceed with the proposed alignment. It is also urged that, having regard to the compensation payable for such a large number of persons, even if the 40% enhancement of cost is true, it is still feasible to accept the alternate proposal submitted by them.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board stating that the alignment was selected to avoid granite quarries, buildings, and public spaces and that a statutory route approval was granted by the Chief Engineer (Transmission North) on 17.03.2023, and the tower schedule was approved on 31.10.2023. Despite the same, on account of the public protest, the proposal could not be started. It is also stated that there are three routes as per the earlier survey, and Route A was selected as the most technically and economically viable by the Chief Engineer, as stated above. On account of the clerical error in the statutory notification, the Melmuri village was originally omitted; however, the same was included thereafter. It is stated that the residents along the route initially resisted stone-laying due to apprehensions that Extra High Tension (EHT) lines would affect the construction of their houses, and it was after the negotiations that the stone- WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:94797 laying was completed.
7. It is also pointed out that owing to the scarcity of free land in the State, transmission lines often pass through residential areas, but always after ensuring statutory safety clearances. It is also stated that, as per CEA (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023, a minimum horizontal clearance of 2.90 m is maintained between the bottom-most conductor and any building. It is also stated that owing to public protests, the tender for the construction of the line had to be cancelled.
8. The alternate route suggested by the protestors was through hilly terrain, and a separate engineering team from another division inspected their proposed alternative, and it was found that the same was technically impracticable, difficult to construct and maintain, and commercially unviable, and after that, the Deputy Chief Engineer submitted a feasibility report. Based on this, the Chief Engineer rejected the proposed alternative route and directed the commencement of statutory proceedings as per the route already decided. It is also stated that a satellite-assisted survey of the alternative route was conducted by a specialised WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:94797 agency, and the survey revealed that eight granite quarries were located within the statutory 300m safety distance prescribed under revised CEA guidelines and that the terrain required heavy towers, which resulted in a nearly 40% increase in project cost and substantial maintenance difficulty. All these were considered by the ADM while passing the impugned order by permitting construction of the line along the originally approved route and directing that the smaller landholdings along the right of the way be protected to the extent possible.
9. It is after considering all the above that the ADM concluded that the proposed deviations were impractical and uneconomical and that the approved alignment did not pass over any constructed houses and accordingly, granted permission for the construction of the line through the approved route. It is also stated that the revised fair value compensation for the tower- footprint land, right-of-way area, and trees will be paid immediately upon completion of tower erection and stringing. It is also urged that the scope of interference of this Court in a judicial review is limited in the case of infrastructure development or for deciding the alignment. The learned counsel for the respondents WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:94797 relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited and another [2022 6 SCC 401] and the judgment of this Court in Ajith K.N & ors v. State of Kerala & Ors [2010 (2) KHC 895].
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reasons for rejecting the alternate route, namely the higher cost, cannot be a reason, as the present alignment affects around 350 land owners. He also relies on the reports of the Village Officer, which also indicate the difficulties of the land owners. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgments of this Court in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997 KHC 489], Kanaran v. Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode and others [2013 (3) KHC 445] and Elizabeth George & Anr v. Deputy Chief Engineer &Ors [2013 ICO 1674].
11. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, Sri. Ajit Joy, reiterated the contentions stated in the counter affidavit and argued that the fear of the petitioners is baseless, as even if they construct houses on their property, only a minimum horizontal clearance of 2.90 m. is to be maintained between the bottom-most conductor and any building, and pointed out that the WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:94797 proposed alternative route of the petitioners will adversely affect the construction of the substation in question. This is recorded.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for either side and perusing the records, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which was issued after the inspection with all the stakeholders and valid reasons given as to why the alternate proposed route cannot be accepted. In such a case, in the absence of any allegation of malafides in the actions of the respondents and none of them being arrayed in the party array, I am not inclined to dislodge the findings arrived at by the Board and which were accepted in the impugned order.
13. The study conducted on the alternative route suggested by the petitioners, including a satellite-assisted survey by the specialised agency, revealed several factors that discredit the feasibility of the proposed route. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that the stand of the Electricity Board is that, as per the CEA (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023, only a minimum horizontal clearance of 2.90 m. is to be maintained between the bottom-most conductor and any WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:94797 building is recorded. Accordingly, I direct that the Board not object to any construction/proposed construction contrary to the undertaking given above, based on the statutory provision.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
Anu
WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 11
2025:KER:94797
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 03-
11-2020 IN PART IV DEALING WITH PRIVATE
ADVERTISEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS
NOTIFICATION
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS OF THE
MELMURI VILLAGE DATED 01-02-2024 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.TDT03/2023-24 DATED 27-02-2024 PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. IN THE GAZETTE Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS CONSISTING OF 164 PERSONS DATED NIL Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE NO.DB2/VENGARA/2024-25/1789 DATED 30-
07-2024 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08-11-2024 FROM THE MINISTER FOR ELECTRICITY TO THE MLA Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19-11- 2024 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 23-11-2024 Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ACTION COMMITTEE DATED 09-07-2024 Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01-01-2025 Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH FOR THE NEW PROPOSAL FOR 110KV LINE TO THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION VENGARA PASSING THROUGH THE OORAKAM AND MELMURI VILLAGE Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 10-01-2025 WP(C) NO. 39857 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:94797 Exhibit P-13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14-01-2025 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P-14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DATED 17-03-2025 Exhibit P-15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-04-2025 Exhibit P-16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-4-2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.
DCMPM/6926/2024-E3 Exhibit P-17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 17841 DATED 27-05-2025 Exhibit P-18 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19-09-2025