Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Om Packaging Industries vs Union Of India And Others on 2 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved Judgment
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1914 of 2024
M/s Om Packaging Industries ........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, Advocates for
the petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Union of
India/respondent no.1.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State/respondent no.2.
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.3,
through video conferencing.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.5.
And
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 944 of 2025
M/s Shree Ganga Stone
Crusher Company ........Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Union of
India/respondent no.1.
Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent no.2.
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.3,
through video conferencing.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.5.
JUDGMENT
Per:Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since common question of facts and law are involved in
both these petitions, they are taken up together and decided by this
common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ
2
Petition (M/S) No. 1914 of 2024 shall be referred to, unless otherwise
specifically mentioned in the judgment.
2. In both these petitions, the petitioners seek mandamus to
quash the proposed Right of Way (“ROW”) and proposed map
transmission line at the diversion of Koteshwar- Meerut CKT-1 of 765
KV bearing chainage no. 4+750, Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The
petitioners also seek directions for diverting the proposed High Tension
transmission line (“HT transmission line”) away from the overhead of
the petitioners premises.
3. Fact necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated,
are as follows:-
The petitioner is running a factory. He came to know that
the proposed HT transmission line is supposed to cross overhead the
factory. In furtherance to which, the job work has also been assigned to
the respondent no.5, The IRCON International Limited (“the IRCON
International”. The petition is mainly based on the following grounds:-
(i) The HT transmission line is right overhead the factory
premises of the petitioner.
(ii) The proposed route for HT transmission line is
divided in to four channels from proposed AP 01 to
AP 04, in which the line passing from AP 01 to AP 02
crosses the petitioner factory overhead, which may
cause unimaginable damages to the lives and
property of the petitioner,
3
(iii) No alternative route/ROW was proposed by the
licensee i.e. respondent no.4, the Power Grid
Corporation of India (“the Power Grid Corporation”).
(iv) Notices were to be served to land owners for
construction of the HT transmission line and only
after the NOC from the land owners, the said project
is to be initiated. Whereas in the instant case, neither
the petitioners were approached, nor they were
intimated of the proposed HT transmission line by
the respondents.
(v) No summons and intimations were given to the
petitioners or public nearby for inquiry or survey in
the vicinity of the petitioners compound, which is in
violation of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (“the Telegraph
Act“), the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Electricity Act“)
and also in violation of the Principles of Natural
Justice.
(vi) The proposed HT transmission line is solely proposed
due to proposed Haridwar Ring Road. Therefore, the
provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 are
applicable and it was mandatory for the respondent
no.2, the State of Uttarakhand to issue 30 days
notice for inviting public comments for seeking claims
and objections, which was not done in the instant
matters.
(vii) The proposed HT transmission line was not
sanctioned with appropriate scientific temperament
4by using Techno Economical consideration as is
mandatory under the Electricity Act and the
Telegraph Act.
(viii) The HT transmission line is in violation to Rule 3 and
10 of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006, whereby the
consent of the owner is to be taken before finalisation
of ROW.
(ix) The proposed HT transmission line does not maintain
the statutory guidelines in terms of maintaining the
heights from the existing buildings.
(x) It was imperative for the respondents to consult the
respondent no.2, the State Government with respect
to the ROW for eliminating or reducing the risk of
personal injury to any person, or damage to any
property.
(xi) The survey allegedly conducted by the respondents is
an eyewash and the same is not in conformity with
the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to
Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations,2023 (“CEA
Regulations, 2023”).
(xii) In the instant case, Regulation 63 of the CEA
Regulations, 2023 has not been followed; no
document has been placed by the respondents to
show that the proposed ROW is the only or best
available option.
5
(xiii) The proposed HT transmission line is in violation of
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India alongwith
Sections 67, 68, 69 and 164 of the Electricity Act and
Sections 10 to 16 of the Telegraph Act and
Government Orders issued in this behalf. Therefore,
it is liable to be declared arbitrary, unjust, unlawful
and deserves to be quashed.
4. The respondent no.3, the National Highways Authority of
India (“the NHAI”) and the respondent no.5, the IRCON International
have filed their counter affidavits. According to them, the present writ
petition is not maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932, which stipulates that no suit shall be enforced
against any person or any third party in any court, unless the firm is
registered. The following grounds have also been taken by the
respondents in their respective counter affidavits:-
(i) The petitioner is only entitled for compensation or
any damages for the land in question as per Sections
67 and 68 of the Electricity Act read with Section 16
of the Telegraph Act, which will be in addition to the
compensation towards normal crop and tree
damages.
(ii) The writ petition is also not maintainable in view of
alternate remedy to the petitioner as they may
approach the appropriate Commission under the
Electricity Act read with Rules made by the
Government from time to time.
6
(iii) The respondent no.5 IRCON International by way of
contract from the NHAI has carried and executed the
entire work of utility shifting strictly as per the
Procedural Guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Power dated 10.03.2023 as well as the other safety
norms.
(iv) The proposed HT transmission line was prepared by a
team of experts in accordance with the safety norms
notified by the Central Electricity Authority (“the
CEA”), which was accordingly submitted for approval
through the NHAI.
(v) According to the proposed HT transmission line,
three wires or overhead line of 765 KV chainage are
to be placed between tower number AP 01 and AP 02,
out of which, two lines are to be passing/crossing
over the barren cum vacant land. Whereas only one
outer wire will be crossing over the minor corner of
the alleged structure. Further the same shall be laid
in compliance of CEA Regulations 2023.
5. According to the respondent nos. 3 and 5, the writ petition
is misconceived on the basis of presumptions and surmises and is liable
to be dismissed with costs.
6. The respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation, in its
separate counter affidavit has averred that the Power Grid Corporation
has been conferred the power of the Telegraph Authority under the
Telegraph Act, vide Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2003 under Section
164 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the respondent no.4, the Power
7
Grid Corporation of India is authorised to enter the premises of any
person in exercise of the power under Section 164 of the Electricity Act
read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. The respondent no.4, the
Power Grid Corporation has also raised the following points in its
counter affidavit:-
(i) If any dispute arises regarding the sufficiency of the
compensation, the aggrieved party may file
application under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act
before the concerned District Judge.
(ii) The 765 KV Koteshwar- Meerut CKT-1 transmission
line has been erected way back on 01.03.2011. But,
for the extension of the National Highway-334 in the
style of Haridwar Ring Road, it was necessary in the
public interest to shift/extension of height for the
safety of public at large.
(iii) A joint route survey was meticulously conducted in
the matter and based on the survey, a techno
commercially viable and optimal route was selected;
the existing Koteshwar-Meerut Line -1 expands to
total length of 178.5 Km comprising 466 towers in
total. Out of these, only four towers are being
diverted due to widening of NH-334/Haridwar Ring
Road. This diversion is confined to mere 1 Km
stretch. The proposed route was selected with due
diligence, incorporating all necessary safety measures
and adhering to the principles of Techno economical
feasibility.
8
7. After amendment of the pleading by the petitioner, the
respondent no.4 had filed a supplementary counter affidavit and in para
2 of it, categorically averred that the survey was conducted and the
present route is most techno commercially viable optimal route; no
provisions of the CEA Regulations, 2023 were violated in the matter.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by
laying the HT transmission line, the petitioners are deprived of running
their business; The HT transmission line would endanger the safety of
the workers and it will also obstruct the fullest enjoyment of the
property by the petitioners. Therefore, before laying such HT
transmission line, the land was required to be acquired and
compensation was to be paid to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the
petitioners have referred to Section 2 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) to argue that even for the transmission purposes
land is required to be acquired.
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents it is
argued that in view of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, in such
matters, the provisions of Telegraph Act would come into play; vide
Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2003 the respondent no.4, the Power
Grid Corporation has been conferred with these powers. It is further
submitted that under 2013 Act, the land is required to be acquired only
when the land is required for use, hold and control.
11. In the instant case, it is argued that in view of Section 10 of
the Telegraph Act, land need not be acquired and in view of Section 10
9
(d) of the Telegraph Act, compensation is payable, which if disputed,
may be decided by the District Judge under Section 16 (3) of the
Telegraph Act.
12. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners have referred to the principles of law, as laid down in the
case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles and
Industries Limited and others, (2017) 5 SCC 143, Century Rayon
Limited vs. IVP Limited and others, (2021) 20 SCC 758 and Bahra
Education and Charitable Society, through Sh. Gurvinder Singh Bahra
and Others Vs. Himanchal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited,
through its Chairperson and others, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 8124.
13. In the case of Century Textiles (supra), on the question of
acquisition of the property or compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
discussed the provisions and in para 23, observed as follows:-
“23. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the
telegraph authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over,
along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The
provision of Section 10(b) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it
abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph
lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right other than
that of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act,
1885 obliges the telegraph authority to ensure that it causes as little
damage as possible and that the telegraph authority shall also be
obliged to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any
damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.”
14. In the cases of Century Rayon Limited (supra) and Bahra
Education and Charitable Society (supra), the same principles of law
have been followed.
15. The question is as to whether before laying the HT
transmission line, the respondents are required to acquire the land
under 2013 Act and to pay compensation accordingly?
10
16. Section 2 (1) of the 2013 Act reads as follows:-
“2. Application of Act.- (1) The provisions of this Act relating
to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement,
shall apply, when the appropriate Government acquires land for its own
use , hold and control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for
public purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely:-
(a) for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force,
and armed forces of the Union, including central
paramilitary forces or any work vital to national security or
defence of India or State police, safety of the people; or
(b) for infrastructure projects, which includes the following,
namely:-
(i) all activities or items listed in the notification of the
Government of India in the Department of Economic Affairs
(Infrastructure Section) number 13/62009-INF, dated the
27th March, 2012, excluding private hospitals, private
educational institutions and private
hotels:………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………
(c)……………………………………………………………………………….
(d)……………………………………………………………………………
(e)…………………………………………………………………………….
(f)……………………………………………………………………………”
17. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly
clear that the provisions of 2013 Act shall come into play only when the
appropriate Government acquires the land for its own use, hold and
control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public
purpose.
18. In the instant case, admittedly, the land of the petitioners is
not required for use, hold and control by the respondents. Only HT
transmission line is to be laid over the property of the petitioners.
Therefore, the provisions of 2013 Act will not apply in the instant case.
19. Section 164 of the Electricity Act is as follows:-
11
“164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain
cases.- The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the
placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of
electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic
communications necessary for the proper coordination of works, confer
upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the
business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such
conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may
think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under
that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the
purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government
or to be so established or maintained.”
20. In the case of Century Textiles (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court interpreted the powers of the respondent no.4, the Power Grid
Corporation on this aspect and in para 21 observed as follows:-
“21. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the
aforesaid provision, the appropriate Government has conferred the
powers of telegraph authority vide Notification dated 24-12-2003
exercisable under the Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the Power Grid. It may
also be mentioned that a Central transmission utility (CTU) is a deemed
licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act,
2003. Power Grid is a Central transmission utility and is, therefore, a
deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. This coupled with the
fact that Power Grid is treated as authority under the Telegraph Act,
1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested in a telegraph
authority under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 including
power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of power
transmission lines. As per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885,
unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity
transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest.
Electrification of villages all over the country and availability of
telegraph lines are the most essential requirements for growth and
development of any country, economy and the well-being/progress of
the citizens. The legislature has not permitted any kind of
12
impediment/obstruction in achieving this objective and through the
scheme of the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay
telegraph lines, applied the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity
transmission lines.”
21. It is not in dispute that powers have been conferred on the
respondent no.4 Power Grid Corporation under Section 164 of the
Electricity Act by the Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2003.
22. In the instant matter the provisions of the Telegraph Act
shall also come into play. Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act are
as follows:-
“10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain
telegraph lines and posts – The telegraph authority may, from time to
time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across,
and posts in or upon any immovable property:
Provided that –
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers
conferred by this section except for the purposes of a
telegraph established or maintained by the Central
Government, or to be so established or maintained;
(b) the Central Government shall not acquire any
right other than that of user only in the property
under, over, along, across, in or upon which the
telegraph authority places any telegraph line or
post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph
authority shall not exercise those powers in respect
of any property vested in or under the control or
management of any local authority, without the
permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this
section, the telegraph authority shall do as little
damage as possible, and, when it has exercised
those powers in respect of any property other
than that referred to in clause (c); shall pay full
compensation to all persons interested for any
damage sustained by them by reason of the
exercise of those powers.
13
16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and
disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of
a local authority.- (1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in
Section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section
is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion,
order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any
person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the
property, does not give all facilities for this being exercised, he shall be
deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the
compensation to be paid under Section 10, clause (d), it shall, on
application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to
the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is
situate, be determined by him.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive
compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested
are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the
Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or,
where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount
tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under
sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice
to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall
determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the
case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are
entitled to share in it.
(5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under
sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of
any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any
compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has
received the same.” (emphasis supplied)
23. Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act categorically mandates
that the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that
of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which
the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post. In the instant
matter also, the HT transmission line is to be laid over the property of
the petitioners. Therefore, according to Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph
Act, the right over the land need not be acquired.
14
24. Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act mandates the telegraph
authority to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any
damage sustained by them. Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act makes
provision that in case, any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of
the compensation to the paid under Section 10, clause (d), it shall, may
make an application to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the
property is situated.
25. A conjoint reading of Section 164 of the Electricity Act and
Section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act makes it abundantly clear that
in the matter like an instant one, land is not required to be acquired,
instead compensation is to be paid. The compensation is determined in
accordance with the provision of the Telegraph Act.
26. In the case of Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of
India and Others, Manu/MH/1452/2020, this aspect was interpreted
by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in para 23 observed as follows:-
“23. As we have already held that the petitioner is not entitled to
any compensation under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, it is
not necessary to consider the plea that the petitioner is entitled to
compensation under the RFCTRR Act 2013. Suffice it to say that the
entire Telegraph Act, 1885, does not contemplate any acquisition of
land. This is clear from the language of Section 10(b) which expressly
mandates that the Central Government shall not acquire any right
other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across,
in or upon which the Telegraph Authority places any line or post. Thus
no acquisition of land is contemplated by the Telegraph Act, 1885 and
therefore the provisions of RFCTRR Act 2013, which are applicable only
to acquisition of land, would clearly not be available, for any user as
contemplated under the Telegraph Act, 1885.”
27. In the case of Hemlata and Others vs. Maharashtra State
Electricity Transmission Company Limited and Others,
Manu/MH/4011/2022 also, the Hon’ble Court discussed this aspect
and observed as follows:-
15
“11. Insofar as the prayer for acquiring the petitioners’ land is
concerned, such direction cannot be issued especially when the respondent no.
1 has sought to invoke the powers under Section 10(d) of the Act of 1885 for
erection of towers to facilitate transmission of its electricity. This position is
clear from the law as laid down in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and
Vivek Brajendra Singh (supra). We are therefore unable to issue that direction
as prayed for.”
28. Similarly, acquisition and right of user and need for
acquisition of land in such matters have been discussed by the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Jagan Damu Kambri and others vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, Manu/MH/5314/2023 and in para 8
observed as follows:-
“8. We find that both these prayers are wholly misconceived as
there is no acquisition of the Petitioners property in the present case.
What is acquired is the ‘right of user’ under the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885. The same cannot be equated with acquiring the property whereby
the Petitioners are divested of their ownership rights, and which are
then transferred to the acquiring body. This issue is no longer res
integra and is covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court
(Nagpur Bench) in the case of Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs.
Union of India and Others [MANU/MH/1452/2020 : 2021 (5) Mh. L. J.
144]. In this case also, a specific argument was made on behalf of the
Petitioners that it was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act for
the ‘cost of land’ due to erection of the transmission tower. This
argument was expressly negated by this Court by inter alia holding that
under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 there is no
acquisition of the land whatsoever. The Division Bench opined that the
entire Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 does not contemplate any acquisition
of land and this is clear from the language of Section 10(b) which
expressly mandates that the Central Government shall not acquire any
right other than that of user, only in the property under, over, along,
across, in or upon which the Telegraph Authority places any line or
post. The Division Bench therefore opined that the provisions of the
2013 Act, and which are applicable only to acquisition of land, would
clearly not be available for any user as contemplated under the Indian
Telegraphic Act, 1885…………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………….”
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view
that, in fact, in the instant matter, the provisions of 2013 Act, do not
16
come into play. The land of the petitioners need not be acquired for
laying HT transmission line as has been mandated under Section 10 (b)
of the Telegraph Act. In such matters, full compensation is to be paid
under Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act and if it is disputed, it is
determined on an application filed by either of the parties, by the
concerned District Judge under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act.
30. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the NOC
from the land owners ought to have been taken before laying the HT
transmission line; notices should have been given to the petitioners or
public nearby for survey; since, the HT transmission line is proposed
due to Haridwar Ring Road, therefore, in view of the National Highways
Act, 1956, 30 days notice was required to be given to the public inviting
comments and seeking claims and objections; the State Government
ought to have been consulted with respect to ROW for eliminating or
reducing risk of personal injuries or damage.
31. In the instant case, the respondent no.4, the Power Grid
Corporation has been conferred powers under the Telegraph Act by
virtue of notification dated 24.12.2003 under Section 164 of the
Electricity Act. The HT transmission line is being laid accordingly. The
provisions of Telegraph Act, does not stipulate giving such notices as
has been contended on behalf of the petitioners. It is also not the case
of acquisition of any land by NHAI, therefore, there is no question of
issuing notice under the National Highways Act, 1956, before proposing
the HT transmission line. It has also not been indicated by the
petitioners as to why is it imperative for the respondents to consult the
State Government with respect of ROW for eliminating or reducing the
risk of injuries or damages. Therefore, there is no force in these
arguments, as advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
17
32. It is also the case of the petitioners that notices were
required to be given to them before laying the HT transmission line.
Reference has been made to the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (“the
2006 Rules”). This argument has less merit for acceptance. In the case
of Century Textiles (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the
similar circumstances held that in view of the provision of 164 of the
Electricity Act, the 2006 Rules are not applicable.
33. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the
instant case, the CEA Regulations, 2023 have not been complied with.
Reference has been made to Regulation 63, which reads as follows:-
63. Clearances from buildings of lines of voltage exceeding 650
V.- (1) An overhead line shall not cross over an existing building as far
as possible and no building shall be constructed under an existing
overhead line.
(2) Where an overhead line of voltage exceeding 650 V passes above or
adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis
of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the
building immediately under such line, of not less than
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………”
34. Referring to Regulation 63 of the CEA Regulations, 2023,
learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an overhead line
shall not cross over an existing building “as far as possible”. Referring
the words “as far as possible”, it is argued that to avoid an existing
building, a survey needs to be conducted and feasibility is to be
examined based on various options. Learned counsel has also referred
to principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Century Textiles (supra), wherein in para 26, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that “it is also explained that electricity
transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where
18
minimum extent of land gets utilised for erecting towers and where
agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any
manner. The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds,
etc. while laying down these transmission lines. It is only when it
becomes inevitable that towers are placed on the private lands to
the minimum and least extent possible.”
35. Referring to the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Century Textiles (supra), learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that in order to avoid buildings while laying
down these HT transmission lines options need to be examined,
feasibility is to be considered and only when it becomes inevitable, such
transmission lines may be laid over building etc. It is argued that in the
instant matter, no such survey was ever done. Feasibility has not been
examined.
36. Learned counsel has referred to the answers provided
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act“) to the
petitioners by the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation, which
is Annexure 1 to the amendment application filed by the petitioner. It is
argued that, in fact, the respondent no.4, in answer to Question b(iii)
and b(iv) has admitted that no alternate route was proposed.
37. In order to appreciate this part of argument, it would be apt
to reproduce the answers, which the petitioners received under the RTI
Act from the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation, which is
hereunder:-
19
Point Information sought Information provided
No.
b (iii) Did the department proposed any Department did not
alternate route to the sanctioned propose any alternative
ROW (map)/ if Yes, please provide all route.
the alternate ROW (map)
b(iv) Whether department is liable to Based on survey
propose alternate routes before Techno-commercially
sanctioning? If no, kindly provide viable optimal route is
such rules. selected.
38. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
respondents have not come up with any case to say that how the
proposed HT transmission line is the only feasible line; the aspect of
avoiding building etc. has not been examined.
39. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submit that after due survey the proposed HT transmission line is being
laid. In its counter affidavit, the respondent no.4, the Power Grid
Corporation in para 23 has categorically stated that a joint route survey
was meticulously conducted and based on the survey, a techno
commercially viable and optimal route was selected. In fact, when
amendment was made in the petition, the respondent no.4, the Power
Grid Corporation filed a supplementary counter affidavit and in para 2
of it also, it is stated that the survey was conducted and the most
techno commercially viable optimal route was found by the
experts/engineers, which is the present route.
40. It is true that as per CEA Regulations, 2023 as far as
possible, an overhead line shall not cross over any existing building.
The words used are “as far as possible”. It is also true that in the case of
20
Century Textiles (supra), in para 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that it is only when, it become inevitable that towers are
placed on the private lands to minimum and least extent possible.
41. This Court cannot examine the aspect of survey in laying
HT transmission line. On behalf of the petitioners, what is being argued
is that the aspect of avoiding building etc. has not been examined by
the respondents. It is denied in their pleadings by the respondents and
what is stated is that a survey was conducted and the most techno
commercially viable optimal route has been selected, which is the
present route. There is no material which may doubt these versions of
the respondents. In fact, it is not a question of raising a construction
over a plot. It is laying a transmission line for which various factors are
to be taken into consideration, including, avoiding the buildings,
avoiding loss of electricity etc.
42. On behalf of the petitioners, reference has been made to the
response given by the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation with
regard to the routes. The questions and answers under the RTI Act has
already been quoted hereinbefore. The information b(iii) was with regard
to the question as to whether the department proposed an alternate
route to the sanctioned ROW. The answer is in negative. It is not a
question of proposing any alternate route. It is categorically stated by
the respondents that after a survey, the present route was found to be
most techno commercially viable optimal route. If one route is found
viable and accurate, there is no need to propose any alternate route.
Therefore, answer to this RTI query does not even remotely suggests
that survey was in any manner deficient.
21
43. Insofar as, answer to query b(iv) by the respondent no.4,
the Power Grid Corporation is concerned, it also does not support the
case of the petitioners. The question was as to whether the department
is liable to propose alternate routes before sanctioning? And the answer
is “based on survey techno commercially viable optimal route is
selected.” It also does not mean that the survey was not done as per
CEA Regulations 2023. The argument that has been advanced on this
aspect on behalf of the petitioners also lacks merit.
44. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
petitioners have constitutional right to property. They cannot be
divested of their rights by any statutory provision.
45. This Court has already held that in view of Section 164 of
the Electricity Act, the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation has
been conferred the authority of the Telegraph Act by a notification dated
24.12.2003. Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act make provisions
for compensation in this regard. The interest of affected persons are
safeguarded. It is not violative of any right of the petitioners. Sections
10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act are still in statute Book. They have not
been declared ultra vires of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be
said that in any manner, any Constitutional right of the petitioners is
being infringed by laying the HT transmission line.
46. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submitted that
the HT transmission line is yet to be laid over the property of the
petitioners. He submits that the petitioners request removal or
alteration of the electricity line under Section 17 of the Electricity Act.
22
47. In response to it, on behalf of the respondents it is
submitted that Section 17 of the Electricity Act, would come into play
only when the transmission line is already laid. It does not give any
right to the petitioners to seek alteration or removal of the HT
transmission line.
48. Referring to Sections 11 and 16 (2) of the Telegraph Act, it
is argued that no one can obstruct laying of such HT transmission line.
Section 11 and Section 16 (2) and Section 17 of the Telegraph Act are as
follows:-
“11. Power to enter on property in order to repair or remove
telegraph lines or posts.-The telegraph authority may, at any time, for
the purpose of examining, repairing, altering or removing any telegraph
line or post, enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon
which the line or post has been placed.
16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and
disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of
a local authority.- (1)………………………………………………………………….
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any
person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the
property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be
deemed to have committed an offence under Section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on
property other than that of a local authority.- (1)When, under the
foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or post has been placed
by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any
property, not being property (sic property) vested in or under the
control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to
do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render
it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be
removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered
23in from, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the
line or post accordingly:
Provided that, if compensation has been paid under Section 10,
clause (d), he shall, when making the requisition, tender to the
telegraph authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the
removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation,
whichever may be the smaller sum.
(2) If the telegraph authority omits to comply with the
requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate
within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to order the removal or
alteration.
(3) A District Magistrate receiving an application under sub-
section (2) may, in his discretion, reject the same or make an order,
absolutely or subject to conditions, for the removal of the telegraph line
or post to any other part of the property or to a higher or lower level or
for the alteration of its form; and the order so made shall be final.”
49. A bare reading of the above provisions make it clear that
according to Section 11 of the Telegraph Act, the telegraph authority
has right to enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon
which the line or post has been placed. Section 16 Sub Clause (2)
makes it abundantly clear that any obstruction in this matter by any
person may attract the provisions of the Section 188 of the Indian Penal
Code.
50. Insofar as, the removal or alteration of the HT transmission
line under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act is concerned, the opening
lines of Section 17 of the Telegraph Act makes it clear that this option
may be exercised only once the transmission line has been placed; a
person on whose land such transmission line is laid may require
the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line accordingly; if
telegraph authority omits to comply the request, the aggrieved person
24
may apply to the District Magistrate, who takes a decision under
Section 17 (3) of the Telegraph Act.
51. Section 17 of the Telegraph Act will come into play only
when the HT transmission line is laid. In the instant matter, it is yet to
be laid. Therefore, at this stage, the provisions of Section 17 of the
Telegraph Act are not attracted.
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view
that there is no merit in the writ petitions, Accordingly, the writ
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
53. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
02.07.2025
Jitendra