Judicial review of District Magistrate's orders under the Indian Telegraph Act requires established illegality or procedural impropriety for interference.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners challenge Ext.P8 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, dated 24.12.2025, consequent to the directions issued by this court in W.P.(C) No.39995 of 2024.

2. The first petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of the property comprised in Re Sy. No.364/29 of Muttuchira Village, having an extent of 8 Ares 45 Sq.Metre. The second petitioner is in possession and ownership of the property comprised in Re Sy. No.364/28 of Muttuchira Village, having an extent of 7 Ares 64 Sq.Metre. It is stated that both these properties are lying as a single plot. Over the residential property, an electric line was drawn in the south-north direction. Two electric posts were put up within the property of the petitioners, one near their residential building and the other at the northern end. It is from this line that the respondents 4 and 5 obtained an electricity connection. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be the wife and son of the first petitioner's late brother. It is conceded that the KSEB had put up these two lines 25 years back.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondents 4 and 5 have possession and ownership of 48 cents of property wherein the Board can put up an electric post and draw line for their requirements. The petitioner's son is planning to construct a residential building on the southeast portion of the petitioners' property, and the electric post stated above will become a hindrance. Based on the said allegation, the petitioners sought the shifting of the electric line, for which a complaint was given to the Board.

4. The petitioners also moved the Legal Service Authority, Vaikom, which issued Ext.P4 proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a representation before the first respondent for shifting the line. As no action was taken on the same, the petitioners approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.23647 of 2024, wherein this court directed the first respondent to consider the representation within a time limit.

5. The dispute was considered earlier by the Additional District Magistrate, who passed Ext.P6 order on 01.10.2024, which was challenged by the petitioners herein and as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 19.09.2025, Ext.P6 order was set aside, directing reconsideration, which was done as per Ext.P8.

6. Through the impugned order, the Additional District Magistrate found that the request of the petitioners for shifting the electric post to the way would reduce its width. It was also noticed that a drinking water pipeline was going through the said pathway.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that pursuant to Ext.P4 order passed by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, the petitioners had remitted the fee consequent to a direction to shift the line to one side of the property of the petitioner. It is thereafter that the petitioner went back and challenged the shifting. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners opposes the same, stating that they had not given any consent for the same, the same does not have any relevance in view of the passing of Ext.P8 order pursuant to the directions of this court in Ext.P7 judgment.

8. The Additional District Magistrate had considered the alternate suggestions given by the petitioners and had decided after a physical inspection, after hearing all the affected parties and after considering the alternate proposals. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the argument of the petitioners that the said order is illegal.

9. As held by this court in Unnimohan V v. Additional District Magistrate, Collectorate, Palakkad and Ors [MANU/KE/2487/2025], the scope of interferen