The main legal point established is that the District Magistrate must exercise judicial discretion, pass a speaking order reflecting objections and reasons, and consider the materials relied upon. Unless the findings are perverse or proceedings are vitiated by malafides, the court will not interfere with such orders.

S. Sankarasubban, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 2412/97. In the Original Petition, she had challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha, under S.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act.

2. The Kerala State Electricity Board decided to draw 110 KV line through the petitioner's property. This was objected to by the petitioner. According to her, if the line was drawn through the petitioner's property, it would cause great damage to the petitioner's property including the loss of many coconut trees. Further it was contended that the drawing of the line would also prevent her from constructing a new building in the property. According to the petitioner, there was a barren land adjacent to the petitioner's property and if the line drawn is through that property, there would not be any hardship to anyone. When the petitioner obstructed to the drawing of the line, the Assistant Engineer, Kerala Electricity Board placed the matter before 'the District Magistrate; The learned Magistrate issued notice to the Assistant Engineer as well as to the petitioner. Petitioner filed objections. After hearing the parties and after getting the reports regarding the lie of the property, the District Magistrate exercised his power under S.16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act and permitted the Electricity Board to draw the line. The order of the District Magistrate is produced in the Original Petition as Ext. P3. It was Ext. P3 order that was challenged before the learned single judge. The learned single judge after going through Ext. P3 order and the records was of the view that the Electricity Board had given the maximum concession to the petitioner. The learned judge also found that there was no irregularity or illegality in the action taken by the Board. Hence the learned single judge was of the view that there was no justification to interfere with the order under Art.226 of the Constitution. Against the aforesaid judgment the present appeal has been filed.

Shriv S. Krishnamoorthy, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that against trie exercise of discretion under S.16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act by the District Magistrate no other remedy is provided. Hence the aggrieved parties had approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the drawing of the line affected the rights of many persons with regard to their properties and hence when the District Magistrate exercised his power under S.16(1) of the Telegraph Act, he had to exercise his discretion judicially. The District Magistrate has to consider the entire contentions raised by the parties and further according to him, the order passed by the District Magistrate should contain the answers to the objections raised by the parties. He further contended that even though this Court's power under Art.226 of the Constitution is limited, when dealing with the discretion exercised by the District Magi strata this court would definitely interfere if i t was found that the discretion had been exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably or that the order did not show any reasons.

4. The Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board Sri. G. Janardhana Kurup

submitted that the drawing of the electric lines was made for public good. According to the counsel, if interference is caused at every stage, it would be difficult to draw the lines, which would ultimately affect the progress of the country. According to the counsel when once the District Magistrate has passed an order after hearing the parties, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the District Magistrate. The learned counsel further submitted that the process of drawing lines involved technical matters and when once it is found that the District Magistrate had formed an opinion based on relevant materials, this court should not interfere with such an opinion and substitute