Kerala High Court
Unnimohan. V vs Additional District Magistrate on 6 August, 2025
2025:KER:58731
W.P(C).No.16168/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16168 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
UNNIMOHAN. V,
AGED 71 YEARS,S/O.VASUDEVAN,KUTHIRAYIL HOUSE,
THIRUVALATHUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678551
BY ADV SRI.R.HARISHANKAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE,PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION,KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
3 VENUGOPAL. S.,
S/O. SUBRAMANYAN, KUTHIRAYIL HOUSE,
THIRUVALATHUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678551
4 DIVAKARAN,
S/O. M.K. VELU, KUTHIRAYIL HOUSE, THIRUVALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678551
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SHRI.FADHI RAHMAN
SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP, SRI.B.PREMOD, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON 06.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58731
W.P(C).No.16168/2025 2
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
W.P(C) No. 16168 of 2025
.............................................................
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P1 order dated 29.03.2025 issued by the 1st respondent, the Additional District Magistrate, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 r/w Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003, directing the 2nd respondent, Assistant Executive Engineer, to provide electric connection to the 3rd respondent by drawing a service line through the petitioner's property, including the insertion of a support post, as proposed under Proposal No.1 in Ext. P2 application.
2. The 3rd respondent had originally applied for an electric connection on 14.07.2020 for energising an agricultural pump in his paddy field. Subsequently, on 05.08.2020, the 2nd respondent submitted a petition under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, before the 1 st respondent, proposing three proposals to effect the service connection, along with Ext.
2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 3 P3 sketch containing details of it.
3. In response to this, the petitioner had filed Ext. P4 objections on 14.08.2020, highlighting that the 1st and 2nd proposals, if adopted, would result in the felling of trees on his property and severely diminish its utility. He further contended that the proposal No.3 offered a viable alternative whereby the connection could be taken from a post located further east of the 3rd respondent's property by erecting a shed near the borewell, requiring only 10 metres of line to be drawn entirely through the 3rd respondent's own land, along the southern boundary of the 4 th respondent's property.
4. The petitioner had also approached the Munsiff Court, Palakkad, by filing O.S. No. 317/2020 seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the drawing of the line through his property. An interim order of injunction was granted on the same day and remained in force till the suit was ultimately dismissed on 31.08.2024.
5. Following dismissal of the suit, a hearing was conducted on 27.03.2025 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, without 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 4 conducting any independent site inspection and relying entirely on the 2nd respondent's submissions, passed the impugned order on 29.03.2025, directing the supply of electricity to the 3rd respondent through the petitioner's property. The petitioner received the order only on 04.04.2025. Without any further notice, a support post was inserted on 05.04.2025, and on 06.04.2025, which was a Sunday, the officials of KSEB drew 15 metres of weather-proof line through his property and effected connection to the 3rd respondent.
6. The petitioner asserts that the proposed route ABC shown in Ext. P3 sketch passes through the property of the petitioner, causes significant hindrance to utilise their land for cultivation, and would require cutting and removal of trees. The alternative routes DC and EC as shown in Ext. P2 would cause minimal or no hindrance. Petitioner also contends that the 1st respondent ought to have conducted a site inspection to know the feasibility of the proposals made in Ext. P2. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent failed to discharge the statutory duty of balancing the rights of the landowner while granting permission under section 164. The alternate routes proposed, specifically proposals no. 2 and 3, were admittedly feasible and involved little or no intrusion into private properties. The choice of 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 5 route ought not to have been dictated merely by the criterion of least expense to the beneficiary, and no assessment of the damage to the petitioner's land was carried out. In the above circumstances, the petitioner prays for the quashing of Ext. P1 order and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dismantle the service connection given to the 3rd respondent.
7. The 3rd respondent, in the counter affidavit, contends that he is a farmer by occupation, owning 1¼ acres of paddy field of land and in the course of agricultural improvements, installed a borewell. To draw water using the borewell, he required an electric supply, and accordingly, a request for connection was made. It is contended that proposal No.1, as recommended in Ext. P2 was the shortest and most practical among the three. The portion of land over which the line was drawn belonged to the petitioner and was a paddy field, not a coconut grove as alleged. While certain coconut trees are standing at the ridges, as noted in Ext. P5, their presence does not interfere with the drawing of the electric line. No tree was cut or damaged in the process. The electric connection was effected as per Ext. P1 by drawing a weather-proof wire from an existing post on the petitioner's ridge, with only 7 metres passing through the petitioner's land 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 6 and the remaining 15 metres through the land of the petitioner's brother, who consented without objection. The selected route was not only the most economical but also caused no harm or loss to the petitioner or cultivation activities on the land.
8. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., it is submitted that the writ petition lacks merit and does not warrant the interference of this Court. It is contended that following the 3rd respondent's application, officials of KSEB Ltd. visited the premises to assess the quantum of work involved and to identify a technically feasible route for drawing the electric line. Upon site evaluation, it was determined that the most feasible and economical route involved drawing a 15-metre weather-proof service wire through the property of the petitioner. The line was to be drawn from an existing electric post, already servicing the petitioner's own agricultural connection. A support could be placed in the property of the beneficiary, and the balance of the wire could also pass through his property.
9. The proposed alignment was found to be both cost-effective and free from any significant obstruction or inconvenience to the petitioner.
2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 7 The cost involved in implementing this proposal was Rs.12,189/-. KSEB Ltd. filed a petition before the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, as there was an objection from the petitioner. Along with the primary route, two alternate routes were also suggested. It is pointed out that these alternate routes were significantly more expensive, with one costing six times and the other ten times more than the original route. The proposal and supporting sketch were submitted as part of the record before the District Magistrate.
10. Learned Government pleader, Smt. Suray Binoy cited the following judgments, Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1972 KLT 830 (FB), Aleyamma v. Additional District Magistrate (2020 KHC 3922), Harrisons Malayalam Ltd v. KSEB (1988 KHC 422), Indu Chandran and Others v. KSEB, Tvm and Others (2017 (3) KHC 746), Vignesh Yarsns Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. S Subramaniam and Others (2013 KHC 2064), Kesavan v. Addl. District Magistrate (1986 KHC 101), Elizabeth George and Others v. Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Kottayam and Others ((2013) (3) KHC
686), on the power/discretion exercised by the Additional District Magistrate under S.16 of the Telegraph Act.
2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 8
11. Heard both the counsel, Sri. R Harishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.B. Premod, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB.
12. The scope of interference with the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, is by now well settled that the District Magistrate is enjoined to enquire into the objections raised, strive to minimise hardship, consider the technical feasibility, and assess the cost involved, which is to be placed on record by the Department concerned. The order is to be a reasoned, speaking order, setting out the objections raised, the reasons for their acceptance or rejection, and the materials relied upon. The scope of judicial review of orders passed by the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act is warranted only in cases of established illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or where the order is found to be unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense or vitiated by mala fides, either factual or legal. When assessing the rationality and reasonableness of the District Magistrate's decision, due deference must be shown to the opinion of experts in technical matters, and if the decision is based on such expert views, the court should ordinarily refrain from interference. The exercise of discretion by the District Magistrate may be 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 9 judicially reviewed where there is an abuse of power, for example, where the decision is actuated by bad faith, or involves a mistake in construing the legal limits of the power.
13. In the present case, one of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had not conducted any independent inspection before passing the order, but solely relied on the three proposals which had been prepared by the technical and expert team of the Electricity Board after site evaluation of the said premises. The officials of the Board possess the required technical expertise, and their reports and inputs were duly considered. The District Magistrate thereafter issued notice to all parties, conducted a hearing, and passed a reasoned order considering the objections raised. As held in Elizabeth George, Valsamma, and V. Vignesh v. District Collector [2012 (4) KLT SN 90 (Case No. 102)], that when the officials of the Board, having technical expertise, opine that a particular route is more technically feasible and in public interest, there is no justification for the collector to pass such an order to change the route which was not found to be technically feasible by experts. The Board officials' views on techno-economic feasibility must be accorded due weight, and the role of the District Magistrate is not to second-guess technical 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 10 recommendations unless such recommendations are vitiated by arbitrariness or mala fides.
14. In Elizabeth George (supra), on answering the question, whether it is possible for a person objecting to the drawing of lines across his property to insist that another route should be considered, and whether the District Magistrate can give such a finding, it was held that going by the scheme of section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate's jurisdiction is only to consider whether the resistance or objection of the land owners or holders is justifiable or not and in that process, if alternate routes are suggested, by the land owners/holders and if KSEB finds that such options are technically feasible and they approve it, necessarily the District Magistrate can evaluate whether the said proposal can be considered. However, once KSEB concludes that the alternative routes are not viable, the District Magistrate cannot hold a different opinion regarding the said route. If KSEB had formed an opinion that such a proposal cannot be revived, as it is not feasible, the Court cannot direct KSEB to approve the said proposal.
15. As per Ext. P2, the estimated costs for Proposals I, II, and III are 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 11 Rs. 11,520, Rs. 61,855, and Rs. 1,27,652, respectively. Proposal I involves drawing a 15-meter weather-proof service wire through the petitioner's property (route ABC in Ext. P3). Proposal II suggests a 110-meter 3-phase overhead line through the petitioner's property (route DC), and Proposal III proposes a 226-meter overhead line through the 4th respondent's property (route EC). These options were considered in Ext. P1. The petitioner's claim that routes DC and EC would cause less hindrance was rejected. The argument regarding tree removal and financial loss due to the ABC route was also found unsustainable, as the installation is already complete, and no trees were cut.
16. Thus, the Ext P1 order passed by the 1st respondent was issued after conducting a hearing in which all parties were heard, and after considering the proposals for alternate routes. The route approved was found to be the most feasible and economical, and thus, the District Magistrate's satisfaction was based on relevant materials and objections, and the order is reasoned. The 1st respondent had issued Ext. P1 order after considering the technical feasibility and assessing the cost factor, and also after hearing all the parties and recording their statements, reasons for their acceptance are stated, and thus, warrant no interference by this court 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 12 as there is no legal infirmity or substantial prejudice caused by the implementation.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE okb 2025:KER:58731 W.P(C).No.16168/2025 13 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16168/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29-03-2025 OF 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO. DCPKD/7194/2020-D8 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 16(1) OF INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT READ WITH SECTION 164 OF ELECTRICITY ACT Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P-2 Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DATED 14-08-2020 FILED BY PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P-2 Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 12-08- 2020 ALONG WITH SKETCH FILED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN IA NO. 1750/2020 IN OS NO.
317/2020RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the judgment dated 31-08-2024 passed in OS NO.317/2020 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Palakkad.
Exhibit R2(a) The copy of the said judgment in OS 317/2020 dated 31.08.2024 of Munsiff Court Palakkad