Court declined to revisit the tower-authorisation order after construction, preserving the petitioner’s right to pursue other remedies.

The petitioner claimed joint ownership and possession of land in Sy. No. 62/14, Kadandale village.

In connection with a proposed high-tension transmission line, KPTCL sought authority under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to proceed with Tower No. 7.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 21 January 2025, alleging that it disregarded survey material and that the tower was to be located on another person’s land.

By the time the writ petition was heard, the towers had been laid and KPTCL had deposited compensation of Rs. 9,46,969.50 before the jurisdictional District Judge.

The petitioner acknowledged that little remained for consideration in the writ petition and sought liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy

1. Whether the Court should revisit the Deputy Commissioner’s order after the respondents had completed laying the towers.

2. Whether the petitioner should be left at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

The order refers to Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as the statutory basis for the respondents’ application before the Deputy Commissioner.

It does not interpret these provisions, cite precedent, or set out a further substantive legal rule; the disposition rests on the circumstances and submissions before the Court.

The Court noted that the respondents had already laid the towers and deposited compensation before the jurisdictional District Judge.

In those circumstances, it declined to revisit the Deputy Commissioner’s order in the writ petition.

The petitioner’s stated intention to seek an appropriate remedy was preserved, without the Court determining the merits of the underlying dispute.

All pending applications were closed.