[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rathod Mahendrasinh Ramsangbhai vs District Collector, Ahmedabad on 27 January, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5840/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5840 of
2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/46/2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/8111/2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 46 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8111 of 2025
==========================================================
RATHOD MAHENDRASINH RAMSANGBHAI
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AHMEDABAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY R.SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR MS ILABEN C RABADIYA(10408) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 27/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. There is no serious objection to the delay in filing
an appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of
the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. The
delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Office shall allot
regular number to the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5840/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
perusal of the record, we may note that present intra-court
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
4.7.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the
learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the decision
of the competent authority enabling the transmission
company, namely, Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation
to lay electricity line in accordance with the provisions of the
Indian Telegraph Act 1885 read with Electricity Act 2003. A
perusal of the order impugned indicates that challenge before
the Writ Court was to the order dated 9.8.2024 passed by the
competent authority / District Magistrate under Section 16(1)
of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 as applicable by virtue of
Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003.
3. The writ petition challenging the order passed by
the District Magistrate on the application filed by the
Transmission Company has been brought before this Court in
the year 2025 after the electricity line was laid. There is no
dispute about the said fact reflected from the record. Only
challenge made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the
judgment impugned is that the electricity transmission line
was laid over the petitioner's agricultural lands for
transmission of electricity to a private company and further
the consent of the petitioner / owner has not been taken by
the transmission company before deciding to lay down
electricity line. Both these submissions do not detain us for
long in view of the settled law that no resistance or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5840/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
obstruction of the work of laying of electricity line can be
entertained by the Court once the technical feasibility of the
project has been approved by the appropriate Government by
issuing an order under section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003.
A reference be made to the decision of this Court in Gujarat
Energy Transmission Corporation Vs Ratilal Barot,
[2020 (4) GLR 2642] wherein while considering the said
principle, it was held that no land owner or person interested
can seek for shifting or realignment of the route on the
premise that the District Collector or District Magistrate has
the powers to do so. The District Magistrate has no power to
alter any route or alignment except to remove the difficulties
faced by the licencee or the person authorized pursuant to the
orders issued under Section 164 of the Electricity Act.
4. It is, thus, evident that both the grounds of
objections taken by the petitioner to assail the decision of the
competent authority finalizing the route for laying of
electricity line, were beyond the powers of adjudication by the
District Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 16(1) of
the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. There was absolutely no
challenge to the decision of the competent authority before
the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, in the writ
proceedings, it was not open for the learned Single Judge to
express any opinion about the decision of the competent
authority / appropriate Government with regard to the
technical feasibility of the project. The contentions made by
he learned counsel for the petitioner about the error
committed in the order impugned passed by the District
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5840/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act
1885, therefore, cannot be entertained to attach any error in
the judgment impugned.
5. With the above, the present appeal stands
dismissed being devoid of any merits.
6. It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the
writ petition as well as appeal will not come in the way of the
petitioner in claiming compensation as determined by the
competent authority and/or to assail the said determination
before the higher authority under Section 16(3) of the Indian
Telegraph Act 1885.
7. Any delay caused on account of the writ petition or
the present appeal filed before this Court shall be condoned
by the competent court, once such challenge is made.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
H.M. PATHAN
