[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
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.
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
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].
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
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/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
