Kerala High Court
Salim V.K.,S/O Kunjali Haji vs The Additional District Magistrate on 19 January, 2026
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
1
W.A.No. 3169 of 2025 2026:KER:3567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
WA NO.3169 OF 2025
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2025 IN WP(C) NO.39857 OF 2025 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
-------
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SALIM V.K., S/O.KUNJALI HAJI,
AGED 58 YEARS, 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.
2
W.A.No. 3169 of 2025 2026:KER:3567
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA
RESPONDENTS/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
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2026, THE COURT ON
19.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No. 3169 of 2025 2026:KER:3567
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.(C) No.39857 of 2025 have instituted this intra-court appeal seeking to challenge the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 08.12.2025.
2. The appellants-petitioners in the writ petition are stated to be the residents of Oorakam and Melmuri Villages of Malappuram District. The 2nd respondent, Electricity Board, sought to draw a 110kV line for a proposed substation at Vengara. The petitioners contended that the line could be drawn by avoiding Melmuri Village, and that is why, in the original proposal, their village was not affected. However, they state that through a corrigendum notification, their Village is also included, on account of which an alternative proposal for line drawing was made before the 1st respondent, Additional District Magistrate (ADM). Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P16, granting permission for the Board, which would affect a substantial number of families, according to the petitioners. 4
W.A.No. 3169 of 2025 2026:KER:3567 The order at Ext.P16 was the subject matter of challenge in an earlier writ petition before this Court, which stood disposed of by Ext.P17 judgment dated 27.05.2025, setting aside Ext.P16, holding that ADM is to personally inspect the site in question and pass a fresh order. Pursuant to the direction as above, Ext.P18 order dated 19.09.2025 has been issued by ADM, after carrying out personal inspection as ordered by this Court, finding that the alternate route suggested by the petitioners was expensive and technically not feasible. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P18 issued as above that the petitioners have filed the writ petition in question before this Court, which stood disposed of by the learned Single Judge, refusing to interfere with the impugned order after recording the stand of the Board that only a minimum horizontal clearance of 2.90 m., is required to be maintained between the bottom-most conductor and any building. Not satisfied with the afore, the petitioners have instituted this intra-court appeal.
3. Heard Smt.Ramola Nayanpally, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri.Ajit Joy, the learned Standing Counsel 5 W.A.No. 3169 of 2025 2026:KER:3567 for the respondent Board.
4. As noticed earlier, this Court in an earlier round of litigation directed ADM to personally inspect the site in question, especially when an alternative route was suggested by the appellants. ADM, admittedly, has carried out a personal inspection on 23.08.2025 in the presence of the writ petitioners, other inhabitants of the locality, the Village Officer, as well as the KSEB officials. ADM has categorically recorded that the alternate route suggested was an expensive one and that there were several technical difficulties, as pointed out by the Board officials, especially since the construction could not be carried out in the terrain if the alternate route is accepted. We are of the opinion that an effective appraisal of the factual position has been carried out by the 1st respondent as directed by this Court in Ext.P17 judgment while issuing the impugned order at Ext.P18. The scope of a judicial review in technical matters like the one herein is very limited, as held by the Apex Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited V. Montecarlo Limited and Another [(2022) 6 SCC 401]. 6
W.A.No. 3169 of 2025 2026:KER:3567 This is especially so when the site inspection has been carried out in the presence of all affected parties, as noticed in Ext.P18, taking into account the acceptability or otherwise of the alternate route suggested by the appellants.
5. Though the learned counsel for the appellants sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in Madhu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and Ors. [MANU/KE/2326/2019], we are of the opinion that ultimately it is the technical feasibility as well as the expenditure involved, which requires to be considered while issuing an order where an objection is raised by the affected parties. True, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the nature of the enquiry assumes the characteristics of a quasi-judicial proceeding. In the case at hand, this Court notices that the impugned order has not been stated to be tainted with any mala fides, and merely because an alternate route has been suggested which has been found not feasible, the order could not be set aside. This is especially so when the Board has not objected to any sort of construction 7 W.A.No. 3169 of 2025 2026:KER:3567 being carried out in the property in question, and the requirement was the provision of a horizontal clearance of 2.90 m. to be maintained. The learned Single Judge also recorded the afore undertaking and directed the Board not to object to any construction/proposed construction contrary to the above undertaking.
In the light of the afore, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same requires only to be rejected. Resultantly, this appeal would stand dismissed, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Sd/-
V.G. ARUN JUDGE Sd/-