Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
Jayaletha – Appellant
Versus
Additional District Magistrate – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.A.Vinod, Suhail M.
For the Respondents: A.R.Dileep, Surya Binoy, Arun Kumar

An administrative order passed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, without affording the affected party an opportunity of being heard on the final date of hearing, violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

Headnote:The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, by the Additional District Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the impugned order for installing an electric post was passed without hearing the petitioner and specifically challenged the character of the land as a pathway. The Court upon review confirmed that a mandatory hearing on the date of the final order had been skipped, leading to a procedural impropriety. The main issue was whether the principles of natural justice were observed during the adjudicatory process under the Telegraph Act. The Court held that failure to provide an opportunity of hearing on the date of final adjudication violates the mandatory requirements of natural justice, citing that such administrative decisions must be participatory to be legally valid. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to pass fresh orders after granting a fresh hearing to all parties concerned within two months.

Table of Content
1. challenge to an administrative order regarding electric installation on grounds of procedural defect. (Para 1)
2. requirement of natural justice and fair hearing before administrative decision-making. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. By Ext.P5, the 1^st respondent directed the 2^nd respondent to give connection to the 5^th respondent after erecting a post in the pathway by drawing a 15 meter cable. Ext.P5 is impugned mainly on the ground that the same was passed without hearing the petitioner. It is further contended that the place where the post is directed to be installed is not a pathway and it is the property belonging to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that the petitioner was not heard on 05.03.2026. However, she was heard on 26.07.2024 and

14.05.2025.

4. Since the petitioner was not heard on

05.03.2026, the date of final hearing, I am of the view that Ext.P5 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, the officials of the Board and the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMMurali Purushothaman, JJayaletha – AppellantVersusAdditional District Magistrate – RespondentWP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2026

An administrative order passed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, without affording the affected party an opportunity of being heard on the final date of hearing, violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
Jayaletha – Appellant
Versus
Additional District Magistrate – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2026