K.Subrahmanyam, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3590 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                     WRIT APPEAL No. 303 of 2021
                   (Taken up through video conferencing)

K. Subrahmanyam, S/o Subba Rayudu,
aged about 46 years, S.V.Nagar,
Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District
and another                                       .... Appellants/
                                                     Writ petitioners

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Energy
Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi,
Guntur District, rep. by its Principal
Secretary, and others                            .... Respondents


Counsel for the appellants                  : Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao

Counsel for the respondents                 : Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy

Date of Hearing                             : 25.08.2021

Date of Pronouncement                       : 17.09.2021

                                JUDGMENT

(Per Ninala Jayasurya, J)

Aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge in dismissing W.P.No.7793 of 2021, the present appeal is

instituted by the writ petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the

appellants/writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents.

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

3. The writ petition is filed challenging inter alia the action of the

respondents in trying to lay a transmission line through the 1st writ

petitioner's land situated in Sy.No.368 of Kuchivaripalli Village,

Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, as highly illegal, arbitrary and in

violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also

contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 as

enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.24, Energy (PR-II) Department, dated

27.02.2007, apart from violation of principles of natural justice.

4. The writ petitioners filed an affidavit in support of their case stating

that the 1st writ petitioner is the owner of agricultural land of an extent of

Acs.5.60 cents in Sy.No.368 and in various survey numbers of

Kuchivaripalli Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, and the 2nd

writ petitioner, who is his wife, is the owner of an extent of Acs.9.58 cents

in Sy.No.369 of the same village. In order to develop their land, it is

stated that they made an application to the Competent Authority under the

Land Conversion Act to convert the land from agricultural land to non-

agriculture, and on payment of requisite fees, the land was converted into

non-agriculture.

i) While so, it is stated that when the 5th respondent proposed to lay a

transmission line from 220 KV SS-Rajampeta to 132 KV SS-C.Orampadu

through the 1st writ petitioner's land and pegged the lines, it was objected

to by him and thereupon, the 5th respondent issued a notice dated

01.03.2021 under Sections 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

short "the Act"). While stating that the said action is high handed, illegal,

arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules,

2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed by the 1st respondent

vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 27.02.2007 in particular sub-rule 2 of Rule 3, it

is pleaded that as per the said Rule, when the owner or occupier of the

land raises any objection in respect of the works to be carried out, the

licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or

the Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorized by the State

Government in that behalf. Since no such permission was obtained as

contemplated under the Rules in the light of the objections by the

petitioners, it is stated that the action of the respondents amounts to

violation of principles of natural justice, apart from violative of the rights

of the writ petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300-A of the

Constitution of India. Placing reliance on the decision of a learned Single

Judge of the High Court of Telangana in W.P.Nos.4503 of 2019 and 5873

of 2019 dated 22.04.2019, it is further pleaded that in similar

circumstances, the action taken by the respondents therein without

complying with the said Rules was found fault with and the said order

squarely applies to the facts of their case.

5. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 5th respondent on behalf of

respondent Nos.2 to 5 wherein it is stated inter alia that in exercise of the

power conferred under Section 164 of the Act (Central Act No.36 of

2003), the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.115, Energy

Department, dated 07.10.2003 conferred upon the Transmission

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

Corporation of A.P. Limited, the Transmission and Bulk Supply Licensee

in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the powers for placing of electric supply

lines or electric plant for transmission of the electricity or for the purpose

of Telephonic or Telegraphic Communications necessary for the proper

co-ordination of works that a Telegraphic authority possess under the

provisions of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 (Central Act No.13 of

1885). It is further stated that the A.P. Transco accorded administrative

approval for erection of 132/33 KV Sub-Station at Chinna Orampadu and

132 KV DC/SC Line from 220/132 KV SS-Rajampeta to the proposed

132/33 KV SS-C.Orampadu on 03.04.2013, that the scheme was

published in the A.P. Gazette dated 29.01.2015 and in the daily news

papers dated 29.10.2014 inviting objections to the proposed lines, and that

no objections were received from anybody including the writ petitioners

in respect of the said work. It is stated that after the alignment was fixed,

total number of 99 towers were proposed for the said line and only one

tower is being erected in the writ petitioners' land and further that out of

the works in respect of 99 towers, 90 towers were already completed,

including the line works. It is further averred that the Indian Electricity

Act was repealed and in its place, new statute i.e., the Electricity Act,

2003 was enacted and there is no provision to obtain prior consent even

from owners of private property for laying electricity lines. Relying on

the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2007) 6 SCC 792, (2008) 11

SCC 476 and (2017) 5 SCC 143 etc., the action on the part of the

respondents was sought to be justified on the premise that the said

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

decisions support the power of the electricity companies to lay towers and

lines, without prior consent of the owners. It is also specifically asserted

that the writ petitioners never submitted any written representations, but

orally requested the authorities to change the proposed line, and since the

request of the writ petitioners is technically not feasible and viable, the

same was not considered. While emphasising that the entire works were

undertaken by the respondents to cater the needs of the public and

consumers at large in order to transmit the electricity to the end consumer

and that more than Rs.20.00 crores were invested for carrying out of

works in order to lay the towers, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ

petition.

6. Considering the rival contentions, with reference to the relevant

provisions of law under the Act and the Rules framed by the 1st

respondent in G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 27.02.2007 and the legal position as

laid down in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Power

Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries

Limited, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143, Century Rayon Limited Vs. IVP

Limited, reported in AIR 2020 SC 1923 as also a decision in Devisetty

Ramaswamy Vs. Chief Engineer, A.P. Transco, reported in 2013 (4)

ALT 616, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order

dated 03.05.2021.

7. Assailing the said order, Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel

for the appellants/writ petitioners, while placing strong reliance on the

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

Rules framed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 27.02.2007,

emphatically submits that the action of the respondents is not sustainable

in law mainly only three grounds viz., (i) no consent of the land owner

was obtained in terms of sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules, though the writ

petitioners had raised objections, (ii) there is no written order issued by

the Government in terms of Section 164 of the Act conferring power for

placing of electric lines, and (iii) the issue in question is squarely covered

by the orders dated 22.04.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of the

High Court of Telangana in W.P.Nos.4503 of 2019 and 5873 of 2019.

i) In elaboration, the learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 180 r/w Section 67 (2) of the

Act issued G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 27.02.2007 framing the Rules in respect

of works of licensees. The relevant rules read thus:

" 3. Licensee to carry out works:-

(1) A licensee may-

(a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land;

(b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support.

(2) Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works.

(3) Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier or any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the Officer authorised may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.

(4) When making an order under sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the Officer so authorised, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier.

(5) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorised Officer under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Commission.

(6) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act."

The learned counsel submits that as is explicit from the said Rules framed

by the Government, if the owner or occupier raises any objections, the

respondents shall obtain permission in writing from the District

Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorised

by the State Government in that behalf, and since no such permission was

obtained despite raising objections, the action of the respondents is

contrary to the Rules. Further, the appropriate Government in terms of

Section 164 of the Act is required to issue an order in writing, authorising

any public Officer or licensee to place the electric lines or electric poles as

proposed. He submits that in the present case, no such order was issued

by the Government, in writing, for erecting the electric poles through the

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

writ petitioners' land, and in the absence of the same, the action of the

respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal. He contends that the Rules are

mandatory in nature and Section 164 of the Act does not in any way take

away or eclipse the legal requirement of obtaining consent of the owner

when objection is raised for carrying out of works by the respondents. He

also submits that there is no inconsistency in the Rules framed by the

Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 180 r/w

Section 67(2) of the Act with the other provisions of the Act viz.,

Section 164. He further contends that the learned Single Judge failed to

appreciate these aspects in a right perspective and went wrong in

dismissing the writ petition. He also contends that an identical issue fell

for consideration in T. Sudhakar Reddy Vs. The State of Telangana and

Patel Steel & Cement Agencies Vs. The State of Telangana

(W.P.Nos.4503 and 5873 of 2019) wherein a learned Single Judge of the

High Court of Telangana, after considering Section 164 of the Act

vis-a-vis the Rules inter alia held that Rule 3 of the Rules has statutory

force of law and must be followed by the respondents. The learned

counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant

paragraphs of the said order, further submits that in the instant case, the

learned Single Judge instead of appreciating that the case of the writ

petitioners is on the same footing and as such, they are entitled to the

benefit of the said order, committed an error in not considering the same

favourably. Accordingly, he submits that the order under appeal is liable

to be set aside.

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

8. Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,

contradicting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants/writ petitioners, submits that there is no dispute with regard to

framing of the Rules by the 1st respondent. He submits that if a

notification was issued under Section 67 of the Act, Works Licensee

Rules, 2007 shall apply, but when it was given in exercise of the powers

under Section 164 of the Act, there is no requirement to follow the Rules.

It is his submission that earlier, the Central Government framed similar

Rules in the year 2006 and the same fell for consideration before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was opined that once a notification under

Section 164 of the Act was issued, there is no need to follow the Rules

framed in terms of Section 67 of the Act. He places reliance on the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation's

case and Century Rayon's case etc., referred to supra, and further submits

that the learned Single Judge has rightly distinguished the orders dated

22.04.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of

Telangana in W.P.Nos.4503 and 5873 of 2019 on which reliance was

placed by the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners.

Supporting the order of the learned Single Judge on the strength of the

decisions referred to in the order under appeal, the learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents submits that there are no merits warranting

interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised by the

respective counsel, it may be appropriate to note that there is no denial

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

with regard to issuance of notification regarding the proposals for erection

of transmission lines as proposed by the respondents and that as many as

90 poles were erected for the purpose of laying electric line. It is also not

in dispute that after issuance of a notice dated 01.03.2021 by the

respondents exercising the powers under Sections 68 and 164 of the Act

r/w Telegraphic Act, 1885 and CEA (Safety and Electricity Supply)

Guidelines, 2010, the writ petitioners have not made written objections,

except oral.

10. Section 164 of the Act, which is relevant in the present context,

reads thus:

"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 co- ordination 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 (13 of 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."

11. A reading of the said Section makes it clear that the appropriate

Government may, for placing of electric lines or an electric plant for

transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic

communications, confer upon any public officer or licensee or any other

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

person engaged in the business of supply of electricity under this Act, any

of the powers of the telegraph authority.

12. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellants/writ petitioners that the Rules were framed in exercise of the

powers under Section 180 (2) (b) r/w Section 67(2) of the Act. However,

sub-rule 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules contemplates an exception in the

following terms:

"Rule 3(6) - Nothing contained in this Rule shall affect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act."

13. In the present case, a notice was issued under Section 164 of the

Act, and in view of the specific exception as laid down under sub-rule 6 of

Rule 3 of the Rules, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for

the appellants/writ petitioners that the action of the respondents in

proceeding with the works without obtaining the consent of the writ

petitioners or obtaining permission under sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules

from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other

Officer authorised by the State Government, is not sustainable. Though

the learned counsel contends that the Rules are mandatory in nature, it is

settled law that Rules are subservient to the provisions of the Act. Since

the Rules themselves provide an exception as mentioned supra, the

requirement of obtaining permission pales to insignificance. In such view

of the matter, the contentions advanced in this regard by the learned

counsel for the appellants are liable to be rejected.

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

14. Further, the learned Single Judge dealt with the said contentions in

his elaborate order and held thus:

"12. Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No. 24, dated 27.02.2007, contemplates that a licensee may (a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, where over or where under any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land;

(b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support; Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this Rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other office authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works. Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier or any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorized may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered. When making an order under sub rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorised officer under sub rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Commission. Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act.

13. Therefore, based on Rule-3 of The Rules, the respondents by exercising power under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, proposed to lay the line erecting tower in the land of the 1st petitioner and issued notice dated 01.03.2021 under Sections 68 and 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 as admitted in Para 4 of the

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

Writ Affidavit. Thus, the respondents are invoking the power under Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as:

"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 co-ordination 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 provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of 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."

14. In view of Section 164 of the Act, the licensee/respondents can follow the procedure laid down in Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. When an exception is carved out in the Rule 3, Sub-Rule

(i) to (v) and in rule-VI, invocation of the powers by the respondents under Section 68 and 164 of Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be said to be illegal, since it is an exception as prescribed under Sub Rule (i) to (v) of the Rule-3 of the Rules."

15. This Court is in complete agreement with the conclusions arrived at

by the learned Single Judge as also independently examined by this Court

in the paragraphs referred to supra and accordingly reject the contentions

advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.

16. With reference to the contention advanced by the learned counsel

for the appellants/writ petitioners that the action of the respondents is not

sustainable in the absence of an order by the State Government conferring

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

power/authorisation to carry out the works in terms of Section 164 of the

Act, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

that powers are conferred on the 2nd respondent, by virtue of

G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 07.10.2013 for placing of any wires, poles, towers,

etc., for transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or

telegraphic communication facility necessary for the proper coordination

of the works of the AP Transco and in view of the same, the contention of

the learned counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected.

17. As seen from the notice dated 01.03.2021, it is clear that the same

was issued with reference to the powers conferred under the said G.O., a

copy of which is filed by the respondents along with a memo dated

12.07.2021, and it is in terms of Section 164 of the Act. The contention

raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners in this

regard is, therefore, rejected.

18. With reference to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel

for the appellants that the learned Single Judge went wrong in not

applying the order dated 22.04.2019 in W.P.Nos.4503 and 5873 of 2019

on the file of the High Court of Telangana to the facts of the present case,

this Court is unable to accept the same. The learned Single Judge in the

present case while relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, rejected the submission of the learned counsel for the writ

petitioners on the premise that the said order referred to above is not a

binding precedent, except of persuasive value. The learned Single Judge

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

also observed that the exception carved out to clause (i) to (v) of Rule 3

by Clause (vi) was not considered in the said order. Further, the learned

Single Judge at para 15 of the order under appeal took note of the

judgment in Devisetty Ramaswamy's case wherein the learned Single

Judge adverted to Sections 67 and 164 of the Act including the decision in

the case of K. Subba Raju Vs. Executive Engineer, TLC Division, A.P.

Transco, reported in 2010(4) ALD 358, and the decision in G.V.S.

Ramakrishna Vs. A.P. Transco, Hyderabad, reported in AIR 2009 (AP)

158, and concluded that when the licensee intends to lay the electric lines

by erecting any poles etc. invoking Section 164 of the Act, the licensee

would not be required to either initiate land acquisition proceedings or

obtain consent from the owner as required under Rule 3. Under the said

circumstances, this Court subscribes the view taken by the learned Single

Judge in the present case and accordingly reject the contentions advanced

on behalf of the writ petitioners.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Power Grid Corporation's case

referred to supra had an occasion to consider Rule 3 of the Works of

Licensees Rules, 2006 framed by the Central Government and its

applicability in the light of Section 164 of the Act, and rejected similar

contentions. The relevant paragraphs read thus:

"18. Another submission made was that permission of the writ petitioner was not obtained which was needed as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 2006. Rule 3(a) reads as under:

"3. Licensee to carry out works:- (1) A licensee may -

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

(a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land.

19. In the instant case, the aforesaid Rule is not applicable in view of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under:

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 co-ordination 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 provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of 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."

The Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 are verbatim

identical to the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 framed by the Central

Government. The expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to

above under the said circumstances squarely applies to the present case.

20. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, while

drawing the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Century Rayon's case referred to supra submits that as

per his latest instructions, already 98 poles were erected except one pole,

as the writ petitioners initiated proceedings by approaching this Court and

the works came to a standstill. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

Court while dealing with the use of land belonging to a third party for

setting up of an electricity transmission line while relying on the earlier

judgment in Power Grid Corporation's case, made a reference to the

same and it would be profitable to extract the relevant paras in the context

of the present case hereunder:

"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 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. xxxxx xxxxx

26. We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in the given circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was arbitrary. From the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire work had already been completed by the time the writ petitioner started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the Power Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out that all relevant factors/aspects were kept in mind while laying down the impugned transmission lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is also explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.303 of 2021

where 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."

xxxx xxxx xxxxx

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as follows:

"The decision highlights the imperative and the need for unobstructed access for laying down the electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest as these are essential requirements for growth and development of the country, economy and well-being of the citizens."

21. The said judgment, in the opinion of this Court, is applicable to the

facts of the instant case.

22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion

that no case is made out to interfere with the well-considered order of the

learned Single Judge.

23. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is, therefore,

dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if

any, pending shall stand dismissed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          NINALA JAYASURYA, J
                                                                           cbs

                                                      HCJ & NJS,J
                                               W.A.No.303 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No.303 of 2021

16th September, 2021 cbs