Judicial review of transmission line approvals under Telegraph Act limited to perversity or mala fides; defer to expert opinion in public interest.

2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30^th January 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 17587 of 2025, filed by the writ petitioner challenging an order dated 28^th April 2025 issued by the first 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.

3. The 2^nd respondent issued a notice (Ext.P1) to the late brother of the writ petitioner under Section 164 read with Section 185(2)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, (XXXIII) of 1985. 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 Kuttikkol Sub- station within seven days from the date of the notice. It is further stated that the extent of compensation for the damage of any of the above mentioned trees/crops/buildings will be assessed and paid through the officers of the Board.

4. The writ petition was preceded by another writ petition filed by Mr. Ramakrishnan K., the elder brother of the present writ petitioner/writ appellant, in W.P.(C) No. 38273 of 2024, in which an order was passed on 5^th November 2024 directing the Additional District Magistrate to take effective steps to dispose of the objections raised by the elder brother of the writ petitioner in respect of the notice issued for laying the electricity transmission line through Survey Nos. 143 and 148 of Kolathur Village. The objection raised by the elder brother of the present writ petitioner is similar to the objection raised in this writ appeal, namely that the laying of such an electricity transmission line would result in the demolition of certain structures and the uprooting of trees. The Additional District Magistrate was directed to dispose of the said objections after affording an opportunity of hearing to the elder brother of the writ petitioner, any other affected party, and the Kerala State Electricity Board, before taking a final decision. Pursuant thereto, a decision was taken on 28^th April 2025, which became the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, and the impugned order before us arises out of the said writ petition.

5. The grievance of the learned counsel is that, while disposing of the objections, no other interested persons were heard. However, it appears from the affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent that, in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 5^th November 2024, a site inspection was conducted on 21^st February 2025, during which an alternative route suggested by the writ petitioner was pointed out. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a notice of hearing on 19^th March 2025 to the elder brother of the writ petitioner, pursuant to which a hearing was conducted, and written objections along with a sketch of the alternative route were filed, which were produced as Exts. P9 and P10. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 28^th April 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 writ petitioner was rejected, and a direction was issued to draw the 110 kV line through the middle of the petitioner’s property. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that no consent was obtained for laying the 110 kV line through the petitioner’s property. The objections and suggestions regarding the alternative route submitted by the petitioner were not considered at all in the impugned order, which was based solely on the report submitted by the 2^nd respondent.

6. A statement