Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Pushparajan Kodoth, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Ajit Joy, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30th January 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 17587 of 2025, filed by the writ petitioner challenging an order dated 28th 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 2nd 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 5th 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 28th 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 2nd respondent that, in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 5th November 2024, a site inspection was conducted on 21st 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 19th 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 28th April 2025 was issued by the 1st respondent, wherein, based solely on the report of the 2nd 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 2nd respondent.

6. A statement was filed by the 2nd respondent before the learned Single Judge, in which, paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 reads as follows:

                  “6. The petitioner's brother suggested two alternate routes. Considering this, KSEB Engineers inspected the site and prepared a drawing (google earth drawings). In route (1) suggested by petitioner, it is true that loss to the petitioner is minimum but several buildings owned by near by property owners will have to be crossed and similarly in route (2) a temple and the old house in the property of the petitioner itself will have to be crossed. Also note that nearby tower works have started and some tower works have reached the final stage. Under such circumstance, the two alternate proposals create more loss to the public also to the Board.

                  7. Site inspection conducted by the ADM on 21- 02-2025. The board's actions were approved and the ADM sanctioned the proposed line route after visiting the site, hearing the petitioner and reviewing the report given by the board.”

7. In dealing with the alternative suggestion as submitted by the writ petitioner, it is contended that the alternate route suggested by the petitioner cannot be considered at all since it will traverse other buildings and affect rights of adjoining landowners; which was clearly mentioned in the proceedings of the ADM.

8. Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the 2nd respondent before the learned Single Judge and submitted that the site inspection conducted by the Additional District Magistrate resulted in the sanctioning of the proposed line route after visiting the site, hearing the petitioner and reviewing the report submitted by the Board. The ADM accordingly passed the order after being convinced of the suitability of the present alignment. It is submitted that the scope of judicial review in matters arising under the Telegraph Act is limited, and the discretion exercised by the District Magistrate in approving the alignment of transmission lines should not be interfered with in the absence of perversity, mala fides, or procedural impropriety. In such situations, the Court ought to give due deference to expert technical opinion in projects undertaken in the larger public interest, as held in the following decisions:

                  Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate and Another ([1997 (2) KLJ 798]) , Indu Chandran and Others v. Kerala State Electricity Board ([2017 (3) KLJ 491])  and Power Gird Corporation of India v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited ([(2017) 5 SCC 143])

9. The learned Single Judge has found that the Additional District Magistrate, upon considering all the materials and records, acted strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme and passed the impugned direction only after conducting a site inspection, affording an opportunity of hearing, examining the route suggested by the Board, reviewing the technical report of the Board, and considering the proposals of the petitioner, before approving the alignment.

10. It is trite law that, in judicial review, the reasonableness of a decision need not be assessed unless the Court finds that there have been serious procedural lapses affecting the substantive rights of a party. Unless the process is shown to be vitiated by illegality, irrationality, mala fides, or procedural impropriety, the Court, in exercise of prudence, shall not interfere with the decision of the authority entrusted with taking a decision in a proceeding under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India.  We  are  in  agreement  with  the observations of the learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, which are reproduced below:

                  “12. The reasons recorded in Ext. P11 would show that the alternative routes suggested by the petitioner were duly considered and found to be impracticable, as they would result in the line crossing residential buildings, a temple, and cause greater public inconvenience and loss to the Board, particularly when substantial progress in the project had already been achieved. The alignment approved is based on technical feasibility, safety considerations, and minimisation of overall damage. As per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest, and individual inconvenience must yield to such overriding public considerations.

                  13. In the absence of any plea or material alleging mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions, this Court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter involving technical and expert assessment. This Court must also defer to expert opinion in technical matters, particularly where the statutory authority has exercised its discretion judicially and for reasons recorded in writing. In Unnimohan V. v. Additional District Magistrate (W.P.(C) No.16168/2025), this Court held, by relying on the decisions in Elizabeth George and Others v. Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Kottayam and Others (2013 (3) KHC 686), Valsamma Thomas (supra) and V. Vignesh v. District Collector [2012 (4) KLT SN 90], that the jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act is confined to examining the objections raised, assessing technical feasibility and public  interest based on expert inputs, and passing a reasoned order, and that the Additional District Magistrate cannot substitute or override the technical opinion of the competent authorities once an alternative route is found to be unviable. This Court further observed that judicial review of such orders is extremely limited and is warranted only in cases of illegality, perversity, mala fides, or procedural impropriety, and that courts must ordinarily refrain from interference where the decision is founded on expert technical assessment. No grounds are made out for interference in this judicial review.”

                   In view thereof, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.

   However, there shall be no order as to costs.