Judicial review in technical matters is limited; courts respect expert opinions in public interest unless serious procedural flaws exist.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 28.04.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent directing the drawing of a 110 KV line through the middle of the petitioner’s property. The petitioner is the son of the person in possession of 4.62 acres of land, which contains arecanut, coconut, and other plantations.

2. The 2^nd respondent issued Ext. P1 notice to the petitioner’s late brother under Section 164 read with Section 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act , 2003, and the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885. It is stated in the notice that the buildings and standing trees situated in R.S. Nos. 143 and 148 of Kolathur Village would be removed for the construction of the 110 KV DC line to Kuttikkole Sub-station within seven days from the date of the notice. It is further stated that the extent of compensation for the damage would be assessed and paid through the officers of the Board. Along with the notice, Ext. P2, a list of particulars of the trees and crops proposed to be cut and removed from the property, was attached. The petitioner’s brother submitted Ext. P3 objection to the 1^st respondent under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act , along with a sketch showing an alternative route for drawing the 110 KV line. If the proposed route is adopted, the property would be divided into two and rendered practically useless, and no residential building could be constructed. On the other hand, the alternative route would not cause any damage to the petitioner’s property, would not involve any additional financial commitment to the 2^nd respondent, and there are no crops or residential houses along the suggested route.

3. Since no action was taken on the objection submitted, the petitioner’s brother filed W.P.(C) No. 38273 of 2004 before this Hon’ble Court. By Ext. P6 judgment dated 05.11.2024, this Court directed the 1^st respondent to dispose of Ext. P3 objection. Pursuant thereto, a site inspection was conducted on 21.02.2025, during which the alternative route suggested by the petitioner was pointed out. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent issued a notice for a hearing on 19.03.2025 to the petitioner’s brother. The hearing was conducted, and written objections along with a sketch of the alternative route were filed, which are produced as Exts. P9 and P10.

4. Subsequently, Ext. P11 order dated 28.04.2025 was issued by the 1^st respondent, wherein, based solely on the report of the 2^nd respondent, the alternative route suggested by the petitioner was rejected, and a direction was issued to draw the 110 KV line through the middle of the petitioner’s property.

5. The petitioner submits that no consent has been obtained from the petitioner for drawing the 110 KV line through the petitioner’s property. Further, the 1^st respondent has not considered the objections and the suggestion of the alternative route submitted by the petitioner, which is evident from Ext. P11 order, as it contains no reference to the same and has been passed solely based on the report submitted by the 2^nd respondent. It is therefore contended that Ext. P11 is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed.

6. In the statement filed by the 2^nd respondent, KSEBL, it is submitted that no tower is being erected in the petitioner’s 4.62-acre property, and that only an HT line passes over the property at a considerable height, as the towers are located on hilltops. It is further stated that the old house within the premises need not be demolished. To refute the claim of dependency on the property for family income, it is stated that the petitioner is a Government servant.

7. It is submitted that a notice intimating trees to be cut was served on the petitioner and that, according to the survey, the most suitable route was selected so that