SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
V. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14038 OF 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN
For the Respondents: SMT.C.SEENA, SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SRI. RIJI RAJENDRAN, SC.

Court upheld petitioner's right to challenge expense assessments under the Telegraph Act, directing statutory recourse for disputes.

Headnote:The petition seeks to quash certain communications from the respondents regarding expense remittance for service wire shifting under the Telegraph Act. The Court finds that the petitioner is aggrieved by the cost assessed, offering a recourse to approach the ADM under Section 17(2) of the said Act. The primary issue considered relates to the cost burden on the petitioner for the service wire modification. The Court directs the petitioner to follow prescribed statutory remedies if unsatisfied with the cost assessment.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requests to quash expense remittance. (Para 1)
2. court requires expense assessment instructions. (Para 2)
3. board report specifies required installation costs. (Para 3)
4. petitioner advised to pursue statutory remedies. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers.

“i) Call for the records.

ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash Exhibit P5 dated 19.10.2013, Exhibit P7 dated 29.11.2013 and Exhibit P9 dated 06.03.2014 is as much as the petitioner is directed to remit the entire Expenses for shifting the Service Wire through the alternative feasible route suggested by the petitioner and agreed by the Respondents.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction to Respondents 1 to 4 to effect shifting of Service wire from the present alignment to the alternative feasible route suggested by the petitioner and agreed by the Respondents.

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents 1 to 4 to dispense with the remittance of expenses by the petitioner for shifting the Electricity Service wire and direct the 5th Respondent or in the alternative KSEB to bear entire expenses for the said purpose.

v) Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the end of justice.

and vi) Award the cost of these proceedings.”

2. This Court had passed an order on 02.02.2026 as follows.

“The learned Standing Counsel for the Board is directed to get instructions on the expenses currently required, as the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a post has already been installed, pending the writ petition. Post on 13.02.2026.”

3. Pursuant to the above, a memo has been filed by the Board producing a report after a site inspection on 05.02.2026, which states that a total amount of Rs.14,329/- is required for installing a support post. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same and disputes the quantum, the only remedy is to approach the ADM under Section 17 (2) of the Telegraph Act .

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to take recourse to Section 17 (2) of the Telegraph Act , in case he is not satisfied with the report and the amount computed by the Board.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top