Madras High Court
Ponnusamy vs The Union Of India on 3 February, 2021
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED DATE : 03.02.2021
PRONOUNCED DATE : 10.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos.23689 and 23693 of 2020
1.Ponnusamy
2.Balasubramaniyam
3.Manimekalai
4.Varadharajan
5.Krishnasamy Gounder
6.Venkidusamy
7.Shanmugasundaram
8.Rukmani
9.Subramaniyam
10.Saraswathy
11.Vijayaraj Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
rep by its Secretary to Government,
1/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Ministry of Power,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2.Central Electricity Authority,
Ministry of Power,
Government of India,
Rep by its Chairman,
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi - 110 066.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to the Government,
Energy Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
4.Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
B-9, Qutab Institutional Area,
Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi - 110 016.
5.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
6.The Chief Manager,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
Coimbatore Main Road, K.Paramathy (Post),
Karur District - 639 111.
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
8.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Palladam Range, Tiruppur District.
9.The Tahsildar,
Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
10.K.Sivasubramaniyan
2/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
11.Balasubramanian
(R.10 & R.11 impleaded vide
Court order dated 22.01.2021)
12.Sivagami
13.N.Palanichamy
14.Thirumalaisamy
15.K.Radha Jeyalakshmi
(R.12 to R.15 impleaded vide
Court order dated 22.01.2021) Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.10324/2020/E5 dated
28.10.2020 (in respect of all the petitioners) of the 5th respondent and
quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to
implement the Transmission Project namely "Pugalur HVDC Station -
Edayarpalayam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line" in the Route chosen by the
4th & 6th respondents in the year 2017 i.e., in the Shortest Route in a
straight Line passing through the Lands in S.F.Nos.204, 203, 202, 201,
210, 211, 212, 225, 226, 229, 238, 242, 254, 255, 258, 273, 274,
288, 289, 290, 305, 304, 303, 328, 844, 842, 833 & 834 in the village
of Vavipalayam, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District by considering the
consent yielded by the Owners of the said Lands.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
for M.Guruprasad
For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy,
SPCCG, for R.1 & R.2
3/90
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, AAG,
assisted by
E.Balamurugan, Spl.G.P.
(for RR 3, 5, 7, 8 & 9)
Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel
Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, Sr.Counsel
for M/s.Iyer & Dolia for R.4 & R.6
Mr.Issac Mohanlal, SC
for Mr.P.Nethaji, R.10 to R.15.
ORDER
(This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing)
The petitioners are agriculturists having their lands at
Palanigoundapalayam Village and have filed this writ petition as
against the orders of the 5th respondent District Collector dated
28.10.2020 in and by which the 5th respondent has given enter upon
permission to respondents 4 & 6 permitting them to erect High Tension
Towers in the petitioner's lands on certain conditions with the powers
conferred upon him under Section 60(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
2. The Power Grid Corporation is in the process of laying High
Tension Transmission line from Raigarh to Pugalur at a cost of
Rs.21,735/- Crore. This project is executed in order to transfer the
power energy from various generation plants from the State of
Chattisgarh to various other States namely Maharashtra, Telangana,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In this process, they are laying High
Tension Towers in the State of Tamil Nadu under Scheme II connecting
5 double circuit 400 KV HVAC lines connecting Pugalur, Arasur,
Udumalpet, Tiruvallam, (Power Grid) and Edayarpalayam
(TANTRANSCO) sub stations. The circuit line under Scheme II is the
subject matter of this writ petition which covers 52 KM routed through
Coimbatore to Tiruppur. The land owners/farmers near Edayarpalayam
are having certain apprehensions that their access to their land would
be restricted, the land value would decrease, they may not be in a
position to get any financial assistance with the bankers against their
property and it would be rendered unusable, made certain objections
to the 5th respondent District Collector for the laying of these towers
through their agricultural land.
3. Due to the objections raised by the petitioners, the Power Grid
Corporation had also filed a petition before the District Collector, 5th
respondent for necessary order to enter upon on 21.09.2020. Based
on this petition, the 5th respondent issued a notice to the petitioners
for an enquiry scheduled on 20.10.2020 and 23.10.2020. The
petitioners/land owners did not participate in the enquiry and by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
treating the same as they wilfully remained absent, the District
Collector proceeded with the enquiry and granted the order of enter
upon to the respondent power grid Corporation to lay the towers in the
petitioner's land which is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioners, in
support of this writ petition, made his submissions that the Power Grid
Corporation has fixed a route in the year 2017 through Survey
Numbers 201, 203 of Palanigoundapalayam Village, S.Nos.288 of
Kosavampalayam Village and S.Nos.803 and 937 of Vavipalayam
Village. The routes were fixed by affixing marks in the said land and a
Resolution was also passed by the Grama Sabha on 01.05.2018 by
referring those route for fixation of the year 2017. However in order to
avoid the route through the lands of some powerful persons and to
avoid an existing Windmill, they changed their alignment plan through
the petitioners' land. The land owners in the original plan of the year
2017 are not having any serious objections for laying the Towers and
for taking the lines through their lands. However, in order to satisfy
some powerful people, they have changed their plan and changed the
route. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioners also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
referred a plan and submitted that it is the original plan with the route
proposed in the year 2017 and also referred some of the photographs
with the markings in S.Nos.201, 203 etc. as referred to above.
5. The Grama Sabha of the Panchayat passed a resolution on
01.05.2018 to take the 'Bee lines' in their Village through underground
instead of overhead lines and in its resolution also they have referred
the S.Nos.201, 203 of Palanigoundapalayam Village and S.Nos.288 of
Kosavampalayam Village and S.Nos.803 and 937 of Vavipalayam
Village. The respondent/Corporation has also admitted in their counter
affidavit about a route which has been finalized in the year 2017 and
the respondent land owners, on the proposed original plan, have also
expressed their consent for laying all these towers. He also requested
for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the truth.
In addition to the above submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioners assailed the impugned order on the ground of audi alteram
partem rule.
6. The impugned order refers to the objection made by the
petitioners for erection of towers and therefore, the Power Grid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Corporation has also approached the District Collector as per the
provisions of the Telegraph Act. The District Collector, in all fairness,
ought to have conducted an enquiry with the petitioners, but without
providing an opportunity has simply followed the Report of the
Tahsildar as summons served on the petitioners and proceeded with
the enquiry and as these petitioners failed to appear for the enquiry.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners never received any summons or notice and they have not
refused the same and those notices alleged to have been served
through Village Administrative Officer did not have the names of the
petitioners and the attempted service on a non-existing person is not a
service. All along these petitioners are making their representations to
the Competent Authority viz., the District Collector as on 29.10.2019,
11.11.2019, 02.03.2020, 13.06.2020 and on 08.09.2020. When the
petitioners are agitating the issue from several months, the stand of
the District Collector that they have refused to participate in the
enquiry is unbelievable and a created effort to defeat the interest of
the petitioners. When these petitioners have approached the
Competent Authority from the month of October, 2019, the 5th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
respondent District Collector hurriedly passed the impugned orders on
28.10.2020 based on the representation of the Power Grid Corporation
dated 21.09.2020. As per Section 68 and Section 164 of the Indian
Electricity Act combined with Section 10 and 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, the 5th respondent/District Collector, the Competent
Authority ought to have given a fair opportunity to the petitioners and
conducted an enquiry with an open mind and should have ensured
whether the Power Grid Corporation has proceeded with their
approved route or not based on the representation of the petitioners.
8. The learned counsel further referred to the Report submitted
by the Power Grid Corporation to its Bankers and submits that the
Power Grid Corporation has taken a stand as if public consultation was
made in implementing the aforesaid project without even affording the
basic opportunity of hearing the petitioners.
9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied on the following judgments;
(i)K.S.Natarajan & others Vs. Government of India &
others, reported in 2018(8) MLJ 321 dated 17.09.2018.
(ii)Mr.Periyasamy & others Vs. The District Collector &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
others in W.P.No.5444 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019.
(iii)P.Balamani & another Vs. The District Magistrate &
others reported in 2008 (2) CTC 555 dated 14.03.2008
(iv)K.Pechimuthu & others Vs. Power Grid Corporation &
others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 3418.
10. The relevant portions of the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are as follows:-
(i)K.S.Natarajan & others Vs. Government of India &
others, reported in 2018(8) MLJ 321 dated 17.09.2018.
"15. Needless to mention that any statute, which
provides for the action being taken against the
citizens of this country is to be taken only by
following the principles of natural justice to say
the least. Even in the absence of any particular
provision, the fundamental principles of natural
justice are to be read in every statutory scheme.
Otherwise, any consideration by the official
concerned and the grievance of the citizens
would render the decision making process
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
meaningless and nugatory. What is to be
expected from the second respondent is to
consider the objections raised by the petitioners
independently, without being guided by the
deliberation, which took place outside the realm
of consideration. That would alone be in
fulfilment of the statutory responsibility cast on
the Authority concerned. This is become more
imperative, when the land owners are being
deprived of the full land value and would suffer
curtailment of rights in substantial measure while
dealing with their own lands, once erection of
high voltage transmission wires takes place. In
such view of the matter, the least that could be
done in the matter by the second respondent is
to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioners before passing any orders. In this
case, the second respondent appears to have not
considered the objections of the petitioners in all
earnestness, however, chosen to dispose of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
objections with little application of mind."
(ii)Mr.Periyasamy & others Vs. The District Collector &
others in W.P.No.5444 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019.
"7. Perusal of the notice dated 14.01.2019 would
show that the petitioners were called upon to
appear on 21.01.2019 with their reply to the
common counter filed by the 2nd respondent.
Further, perusal of the track consignment issued
by the Postal Department clearly indicate that
the said notice dated 14.01.2019 was served on
petitioners only on 22.01.2019. Therefore, it is
evident that the said notice, stipulating the date
of hearing as 21.01.2019, was served on the
petitioner only on the next day i.e., 22.01.2019.
Therefore, the petitioners are justified in
contending that the impugned orders were
passed without hearing them and in violation of
principles of natural justice. At the same time,
this Court is not expressing any view on the rival
contentions made by the parties in respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
merits of the matter, as it is for the 1st
respondent to consider and decide. Since, this
Court is satisfied that the impugned orders are
passed in violation of principles of natural justice
as discussed supra, this Writ Petition is allowed
and the impugned orders are set aside.
Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the
1st respondent for issuing fresh notice to the
petitioners by indicating the date of hearing.
After receipt of such notice, the petitioners
should appear on the said date without fail and
cooperate with the enquiry so as to enable the
1st respondent to pass fresh orders on merits
and in accordance with law. The 1st respondent
shall issue such notice within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order by indicating the date of hearing. On
conducting such enquiry, the first respondent
shall pass fresh orders within a period of four
weeks thereafter. It is open to the petitioners to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
seek for such of those documents which are
relevant for considering the objections raised by
the petitioners in the enquiry before the first
respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed."
(iii)P.Balamani & another Vs. The District Magistrate &
others reported in 2008 (2) CTC 555 dated 14.03.2008
"25. A careful analysis of the impugned
proceedings passed by the District
Magistrate/District Collector, pursuant to the
orders of this Court, would go to show that they
are non-speaking orders, as the District
Magistrate has not at all gone into the objections
in detail to consider the same independently, by
applying his mind. Reasoning is the heartbeat of
every conclusion and without the same, the
conclusion becomes lifeless. The rationale behind
it is that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
spelling out reasons for the order made.
Therefore, I am not inclined to go into the other
aspects of the matter, which the learned counsel
on either side have advanced their arguments. I
am only inclined to interfere with the impugned
orders, as they are non-speaking ones. As such,
the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are
set aside, remitting the matters back to the
District Collector for consideration. "
(iv)K.Pechimuthu & others Vs. Power Grid Corporation &
others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 3418.
"10. Irrespective of the rival submissions, this
Court is of the view that since the objections
raised by the petitioners by way of
representations dated 31.01.2018 to the
respondents are stated to be pending, it would be
appropriate to direct the same to be disposed of,
in accordance with law, before the proposed
action is taken by the respondents.
11. Accordingly, the respondents are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
directed to consider the http://www.judis.nic.in
petitioners' representations dated 31.01.2018
and pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with, after affording an opportunity of
personal hearing to all the parties, within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order."
11. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan and Mr.R.Thiyagarajan,
learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Power Grid Corporation
submitted that this is a project which is covering 1,765.04 KMs directly
connecting HVDC Terminal having capacity of 6000 MW. It is also
pointed out that under this Scheme the energy from various
generation plants from the State of Chattisgarh are taken to various
States and the State of Tamil Nadu is a major beneficiary under this
Scheme. They would further submit that out of 1,765.04 KMs, 345 KM
passes through the State of Tamil Nadu. Under scheme II, AC
(Alternative Current) System there are 5 double circuit 400 KV HVAC
lines connecting Pugalur, Arasur, Udumalpet, Tiruvallam, (Power Grid)
and Edayarpalayam (TANTRANSCO) sub stations. The lands which are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
subject matter of this writ petition lies in Pugalur HVDC Station to
Edayarpalayam 400 kV double circuit lines under Scheme II with a line
length of 52 KMs routed through Coimbatore and Tiruppur with 149
towers and out of which foundations for 133 towers have already been
completed and erection of Towers has also been completed. Stringing
works to an extent of 23 KMs has also been completed. In Tiruppur
District, out of 91 locations, they have completed 77 foundations and
71 erection of towers has been completed. According to them, 80% of
the works have already been completed.
12. The learned Senior counsels have also refused the allegation
that for satisfying some powerful people, the original route which was
approved in the year 2017 has been deviated. By referring the counter
affidavit filed by respondents 4 & 6, the learned Senior Counsels
pointed out that the manner in which the route has been preferred is
only the most techno-economically feasible route avoiding places of
inhabitation, worship etc., causing least damage, after complying with
the statutory clearances and also obtaining various parameters such as
a)Minimal impact on the environment; b)Avoiding inhabitant area to
the extent possible; c)Least impact on the crop and plantation;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
d)Crossing the EHT line at an angle as close to 90 degree e)Crossing
the National Highways at an angle as close to 90 degrees etc.,
f)Avoiding places of worship etc.; g)Avoiding Natural water bodies and
Parks, etc.; h)Most economical route.
13. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the
respondent Corporation executes its projects following the procedure
as below described:
(i) A straight line called "BEE LINE" is drawn from point to point
(i.e.) sending end substation to receiving end substation.
(ii) POWER GRID Engineers go along the 'BEE LINE' as nearly as
possible, avoiding settlements, Railway line, Road crossing, River,
Forest etc. (i.e., a walk over survey is conducted).
(iii) Propose three alternate routes to find out which is the most
economically and technically feasible route. (During this process,
approximate Angle points are also fixed using Global Positioning
System (GPS).
(iv) The above exercises are shown in Topographical Maps issued
by Survey of India.
(v) The next stage is whatever is there in the Map is transferred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
to the ground viz., marked in the ground.
(vi) The angle points are fixed on ground by using Global
Positioning System (GPS) instruments.
(vii) A detailed survey is conducted. For every 20 meters, ground
level measurement is taken & Geographical details are collected and
line peg mark fixed.
(viii) A profile is made on the above details. Normally, the space
between two towers is 400 meters. The span will depend on the
ground level, road, railway track, river and settlements and technical
aspects.
(ix) Then the tower schedule is prepared.
(x) On due approval of the above, check survey is done.
(xi) Exact tower point is fixed with the help of survey instrument.
[It is only at that stage, we know the exact survey number over
which the tower is to be located]
(xii) After fixing the tower location, the details as to the
ownership/details of owners of affected lands are obtained from the
Revenue Authorities.
14. The learned Senior counsels appearing on behalf of
respondents 4 & 6 have relied upon the following judgments in respect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
of their contention:-
(i) W.A.No.464 of 2008 dated 10.04.2008 in R.Kannan Vs.
Power Grid Corporation (India) Limited.
(ii) C.Ram Prakash and another –Vs- Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd., reported in 2011 (4) MLJ 924 in
W.A.(MD).No.602 of 2011 dated 23.08.2011.
(iii) Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing
Director, Sri. T.Sivakumar, Tiruppur –Vs- S.Subramaniam, S/o.
Sennimalai Gounder and others reported in (2013) 1 MLJ 56 in
W.A.Nos.1049 etc., of 2012 dated 16.11.2012.
(iv) Power Grid Corporation of India Limited –Vs- Century
Textiles and Industries Limited and others reported in (2017) 5
SCC 143 in C.A.No.10951 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016.
(v) R.Raja and 3 others –Vs- The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri and another dated 11.04.2019
in W.A.No.79 of 2019.
(vi) Vai Palanisamy and 10 others –Vs- Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
and 10 others dated 26.06.2019 in W.P.No. 15077 of 2019.
(vii) S.Selvaraj –Vs- The District Collector, Erode District
and others etc dated 16.07.2019 in W.A.No.2032 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
(viii) R.Raja & others Vs. District Collector & others in SLP
(C) No.11596 of 2019 dated 22.07.2019.
(ix) Vai Palanisamy Vs. Union of India & others in
W.A.No.2167 of 2019 dated 29.07.2019.
(x) M.Duraisamy Vs. The District Collector & another in
WP (MD) No.17167 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019.
(xi) Mr.P.Duraisamy Maharajha Rice Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The
District Collector cum District Magistrate in W.A.No.3913 of
2019 dated 25.11.2019.
15. The relevant portions of the judgments cited by the learned
Senior Counsels appearing for Respondent 4 and 6 are as follows:-
(i) W.A.No.464 of 2008 dated 10.04.2008 in R.Kannan Vs.
Power Grid Corporation (India) Limited.
"9. On behalf of the Corporation, the original
plans were produced before us and on
examination of the materials placed on record,
we are satisfied that the route selected by the
Corporation is the best possible route and in any
event, in our opinion, it is not permissible to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
District Magistrate to accept such opinion of the
technical expert and to suggest another route
for the purpose of laying down the transmission
lines. It is required to be noted that the route
selected by the Corporation is the shortest
route cutting through the Reserve Forest area,
which is also in consonance with the directions
of the Supreme Court and in fact, the
Corporation has also approached the Supreme
Court and is awaiting orders for cutting the
required number of trees in the Gudalur Forest
Area, where three towers would be erected.
Moreover, under Section 16(1) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, the only question which the
District Magistrate is empowered to decide is
whether to permit the authority to exercise the
power under Section 10 of the Act and the
jurisdiction cannot be expanded to empower the
District Magistrate to suggest alternative route
for the purpose of layign down the transmission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
lines on the basis of the so-called report, when
it is on record that the Corporation has chosen
the most techno-economically feasible route."
(ii) C.Ram Prakash and another –Vs- Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd., reported in 2011 (4) MLJ 924 in
W.A.(MD).No.602 of 2011 dated 23.08.2011.
"11. Definition of the word 'Post'.:
Section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
defines the word 'post' in the following manner:
"3. (5) "post" means a post, pole, standard, stay,
strut or other above ground contrivance for
carrying, suspending or supporting a telegraph
line;" There is absolutely no substance in the
arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the word 'post' does not include a
'tower', since the definition is rather exhaustive.
While defining the word 'post', it has been
specifically stated that it would also include other
above ground contrivance for carrying,
suspending or supporting a telegraph line.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
12. It is one of the principles of
interpretation of a provision that the general
words which follow specific words will have to be
read by applying the principle of ejusdem generis.
The Act was introduced in the year 1885.
Therefore, there would not have been any
possibility to include the word 'tower' at that time
since it is a subsequent scientific innovation.
Considering the object and reasoning and the
wider amplitude provided under the clause, by
applying the principle of ejusdem generis, we
have no doubt in our mind, the word tower would
also form part of the definition of the word
'post'."
(iii) Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing
Director, Sri. T.Sivakumar, Tiruppur –Vs- S.Subramaniam, S/o.
Sennimalai Gounder and others reported in (2013) 1 MLJ 56 in
W.A.Nos.1049 etc., of 2012 dated 16.11.2012.
"19. As we have observed earlier, as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
scheme of the Act, the District Collector was not
empowered either under Section 16 or Section 17
of the Indian Telegraph Act to decide upon the
route and his power was more in the nature of
execution of a decision taken under Section 10 of
the Act or under Section 67 or 68 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, when the experts
namely the officials of the Board took a definite
stand that the original route which was proposed
was technically more feasible and it would be in
the interest of the public, since the route was
along the existing Panchayat road, we find there
is absolutely no justification for the Collector to
pass an order on 18.7.2011 to change the route
which was not found to be technically feasible by
the experts. Further, the entire work has been
completed except for nine towers and at that
stage it would be improper for the District
Collector to alter the route, and adopt an
alternate route which was found not technically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
feasible. It is stated that the expenses incurred so
far is about Rs.150 crores for erecting lines, apart
from Rs.3,000 crores which was spent for
construction of the new Thermal Power Plant at
Mettur and the power which has to be evacuate
through its supply line is to provide uninterrupted
power supply to both agriculture and industrial
development. Therefore, by virtue of the delay,
the power line could not be erected on time
though the Power Plant was ready to generate
about 600 MW power by the end of March, 2012."
(iv) Power Grid Corporation of India Limited –Vs- Century
Textiles and Industries Limited and others reported in (2017) 5
SCC 143 in C.A.No.10951 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016.
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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.
22. Powers of the telegraph authority
conferred by Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the
Telegraph Act, 1885, stand vested in and are
enjoyed by the Power Grid. These provisions are
reproduced below:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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.
* * *
15. Disputes between telegraph authority
and local authority.—(1) If any dispute
arises between the telegraph authority and
a local authority in consequence of the local
authority refusing the permission referred
to in Section 10 clause (c), or prescribing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
any condition under Section 12, or in
consequence of the telegraph authority
omitting to comply with a requisition made
under Section 13, or otherwise in respect of
the exercise of the powers conferred by this
Act, it shall be determined by such officer
as the Central Government may appoint
either generally or specially in this behalf.
(2) An appeal from the determination of
the officer so appointed shall lie to the
Central Government; and the order of the
Central Government shall be final.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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 their being exercised, he shall be
deemed to have committed an offence
under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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."
(v) R.Raja and 3 others –Vs- The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri and another dated 11.04.2019
in W.A.No.79 of 2019.
"7. Mr.V.Raghavacahri, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants vehemently
contended that every thing is shrouded with
mystery. There is a reasonable apprehension that
the original plan was deviated for the reasons
known. The documents sought for ought to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
been furnished. A narrow restrictive
interpretation cannot be given to Section 10 r/w
16 of the Act. This Court can certainly exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction and come to the aid of
the appellants. In support of his submission,
reliance has been made on the following
decisions:
(i) R.Santhana Raj Vs. The Chief Engineer, Non-
Conventional Energy Source (2012 (1) CTC 504)
(ii)The State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain and Others
((1975) 4 SCC 428)
(iii)P.Arimutharasu Vs. The Superintending
Engineer (Wind Farm Project) TNEB & Others
(Madurai Bench) (2015-1 L.W. 353)
(iv)P.Balamani and Others Vs. The District
Magistrate and District Collector and Ors.
(2008(2) CTC 555)
(v)Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd., Vs. Proprietors of
Indian Express News Papers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd.,
and Others ((1988) 4 SCC 592)
(vi)M.Nagaraj and Others Vs. Union of India and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Others ((2006) 8 SCC 212)
(vii)Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement
and Another ((2010) 13 SCC 255)
(viii)Indian Soaps and Toiletries Makers
Association Vs. Ozair Husain and Others ((2013)
3 SCC 641)
(ix) Chingleput Bottlers Vs. Majestic Bottling
Company ((1984) 3 SCC 258)
(x) N.Lakshmi Vs. The District Collector, Erode
and Others (W.P.No.20360 of 2016 dated
19.04.2017)
(xi)Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another ((2010) 11 SCC 278)
... ....
10. On the scope of Section 16 of the Act vis-a-
vis Section 10, the Division Bench of this Court in
(ii)C.Ram Prakash and Another Vs. Power Grid
Corporation (India) Limited and Others (2011-4
L.W. 924) in which one of us (MMSJ) is a party
and author has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
“22. Scope of Sections 10 and 16 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885:The power
under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 is rather wide and extensive.
While exercising the power, it is not
necessary for the Respondent No. 1 to
put the individuals, who owned the land
on notice. Admittedly, the Respondent
No. 1has got power under Sections 10
and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885. Such a power has been conferred
upon the Respondent No. 1 in public
interest. The exercise of the said power
by erecting the towers with overhead
lines would not amount to an acquisition.
It is true that such an action would
diminish the value of the property of an
individual, but at the same time it cannot
be termed as an acquisition. Since
Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
1885 provides mechanism of
compensation,the Appellants can have
no grievance.
23. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph
Act provides for a mechanism by which
the Respondent No. 1 can approach the
second Respondent, if there is an
obstruction or resistance. It is not
necessary that in each and every case
the Respondent No. 1 will have to
approach the second Respondent
whenever there is an objection. The
word objection has got a different
connotation than the words resistance or
obstruction. A resistance or obstruction
would mean preventing the statutory
body from carrying out the public duty.
Whereas an objection is merely a form
of protest. Further, under Section 16 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Respondent No. 2 has got no power to
go into the merits of the case and find
out as to whether the alignment
proposed is correct or not and there is
any possibility of realignment. The
prescription of Section16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act is very specific to provide
aid to the Respondent No. 1to perform
its statutory duty. Considering the scope
of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act
vis-a- vis Section 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, it has been held by the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in
Scindia Potteries v. Purolator India Ltd.
MANU/DE/0189/1980 : AIR 1980 Delhi
157 as follows:9... The exercise of power
under Section 10 is not conditional on
compliance with the provisions of
Section 16(1) of the Act. The power
given under Section 10 is absolute. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
only when there is a resistance or
obstruction in the exercise of that power
that the occasion to approach the
District Magistrate arises. If there is no
resistance or obstruction, there is no
occasion for the telegraph authority to
approach the District Magistrate. The
alleged oral protest relied upon by the
Appellant appears to us to be a made
up story. Two telegraph poles were
affixed on the Appellants' property in
February, 1974. The telephone lines and
connections were thereafter given from
time to time. Till the landlord-tenant
dispute arose between the Appellant and
M/S. Purolator India Ltd., no objection
was raised by the Appellant. No doubt in
April, 1978 the Appellant gave notice to
the telegraph authority under Sections
17 and 19A of the Act and may be that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
the telephone connections in May, 1978
can be treated as the ones objected to
but then Sections 17 and 19A have a
different purport. The resistance and
obstruction envisaged by Section 16(1)
of the Act is different. This will be clear
on a reading of Sub-section (1) of
Section 16 of the Act. It is for the
purpose of Section 188 I.P.C. that an
application is to be given under
Section16(1) of the Act to the District
Magistrate. Section 188, I.P.C. makes
the disobedience of an order duly
promulgated by the public servant an
offence. Section 16 is really in aid of the
discharge of statutory duty and exercise
of statutory power postulated by Section
10.We are in respectful agreement with
the ratio laid down therein.”
11. Thus, in view of the same, nothing more is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
be stated. In fact, we have also called the officer
concerned and perused the records. We also
permitted the learned counsel for the appellants
to do so. The officer has also explained the
procedure which we have recorded supra. We do
not find any malice in law or fact. The second
respondent is carrying out its statutory duty. Now
the entire project is over insofar as the appellants
are concerned. We may note that two of the writ
petitioners also joined the other in filing the writ
petitions after receiving compensation, which
cannot be appreciated. Similarly, one of the
appellants has also received the compensation
amount. It is the appellants who approached the
first respondent and for the reasons known, they
did not appear for hearing. They have asked for
numerous documents, which is for the purpose of
dragging on the proceedings. Order under Section
16(1) of the Act was passed not only on the
request of the appellants but also that of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
second respondent. The role available to first
respondent is rather limited. It is neither a
supervisory nor an adjudicating authority over the
second respondent. When the element of
expertise is involved and the same is undertaken
by the statutory body as per law, the power of
judicial review will have to be entertained with
extreme caution. We cannot interfere with the
matter on some apprehension expressed by the
appellants. Now the substantial part of the project
is over insofar as the appellants are concerned.
We are not dealing with an acquisition per se.
There is no material available to controvert the
reasoning in the impugned orders. Admittedly,
there is overwhelming public interest exists in
favour of the second respondent. Every delay
would cause serious financial implications among
others. It might have a spiralling effect on the
project as well. The appellants cannot ask the
first respondent to direct the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
to furnish all the documents which they seek.
There is no arbitrariness in the procedure adopted
by the second respondent. Certainly, the
appellants can seek for appropriate compensation
for the diminishing value of their lands caused by
the overhead lines and erection of towers. Thus,
we do not find any merits in this appeal."
(vi) Vai Palanisamy and 10 others –Vs- Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
and 10 others dated 26.06.2019 in W.P.No. 15077 of 2019.
"17. It is a sorry state of affairs that despite clear
pronouncements of this Court on various
occasions on this project, time and again under
one pretext or other, writ petitions are filed on
mis-information being percolate among public
through sensational and irresponsible news.
Those persons are bound to introspect
themselves whether they are truly exposing the
cause of public.
18. After enjoying all comforts of electricity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
in their homes and business establishment,
making fake protest for public consumption and
mislead the pubic to stall the project, which by
and large going to provide uninterpreted
electricity supply, is only an attempt by some
vested interest through the petitioners to keep
the state in dark and perennial starvation for
electricity. This Court cannot be privy to the said
evil design."
(vii) S.Selvaraj –Vs- The District Collector, Erode District
and others etc dated 16.07.2019 in W.A.No.2032 of 2019.
"8. The source and scope of the authority or
power of the respondents to take up the work of
the implementation of the scheme of laying of
transmission line has to be considered. The
permission granted by the State Government in
pursuance of the power under Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 constitutes the source of the
authority, TANTRANSCO. It would be only
appropriate to examine Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. Section 164 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, reads as under:
“164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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.”
.... .....
13. Section 10 that grants authority only
for the limited purpose of establishing or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
maintaining a telegraph. It does not provide any
other right to the telegraph authority. It is only a
user in respect of the property over, which a
telegraph line passes. By exercising such power,
the authority does not become owner of the
property and all that it gets is right of user of the
property. The Section does not contemplate any
notice or hearing before exercising such power to
draw a telegraph line, although it envisages
payment of compensation. However, it would not
make exercise of power under Section 10,
arbitrary or violative of the principles of Natural
Justice as contemplated under Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution. The right to property under
Article 300A is a Constitutional right. It is not
absolute and it can be taken away by authority of
law.
14. But Section 10 of the Telegraph Act,
1885, does not take away any right to property.
It only creates some restrictions on the
enjoyment of right to property by creating a right
of user in the telegraph authority. Proviso (a) to
Section 10 restricts the power of the telegraph
authority only to the draw a telegraph line. It
does not grant the Authority provision to use the
power for any other purpose. The object is to
provide to the Government or to any other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
licensee to place telegraph lines and posts which
are projects, eminently in public interest. Further,
under Proviso (d) the Authority should cause as
little damage as possible while undertaking the
work. It also mandates that the Authority must
pay compensation to the affected person for the
damage caused by reason of exercise of the
power. Thus, Section 10 prescribes a just and fair
procedure for placing limitations on full
enjoyment of property. It therefore, cannot be
said to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14
and 21 or 300-A of the Constitution of India, just
because it does not contain any provision for
issuance of notice or giving hearing to affected
person before the work is undertaken.
15. When the provision of Section 10 is
read with Sections 16 and 17, it would become
clear that under the scheme of Part-III of the
Telegraphic Act, 1885 a balance has been struck
between the necessity of public interest and the
individual need by addressing the grievance of
the aggrieved. Notice and hearing have to be
read in these sections as they confer a discretion
upon the District Magistrate to adjudicate on the
justifiability of the objection or acceptability of the
suggestion and no public authority can exercise a
discretion arbitrarily. Any exercise of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
discretion is likely to have ripple effects and civil
consequences for the owner or occupier of the
private land on the one hand and the escalation
in cost and delay in execution on the other hand.
Therefore, provision of fair opportunity of hearing
in exercise of such a discretion is in consonance
with the mandate of Articles 14 and 21. We hold
that Section 10 by virtue of Sections 16 and 17,
on the whole provides for a fair procedure for a
partial deprivation of right to property and
simultaneous right to TANTRANSCO to enter upon
the property only as an user to lay electric
Towers.
16. We are conscious of the fact that
finalization of route of transmission line is a
highly technical and specialized subject. Also, the
route of transmission line in this case runs into
several hundreds of kilometers and it passes over
different lands of different persons.
.... .....
23. As a matter of fact, discussion on these
aspects had been made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in (2017) 5 SCC 143 [Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles
and Industries Limited and Others]. In the said
case, Century Textiles and Industries Limited had
challenged laying of transmission lines by Power
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Grid Corporation of India Limited, a Government
of India Undertaking, parallel to the existing lines
over a cement manufacturing unit for which they
had a registered lease deed executed with the
State Government. In that case also, excavation
work for erection of towers had started. The
transmission lines were to pass through the
property leased out. Rejecting the challenge over
erection of towers and establishment of overhead
lines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the
provisions and implications of Sections 68 & 69 of
the Electricity Act 2003 and also Rules 3 and
10 of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006 and held
as follows:-
“15. It is further submitted that there is
violation of Sections 68 and 69 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Rules 3
and 10 of the Works of Licensees Rules,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the
2006 Rules”) in laying down the
overhead lines and, therefore, the High
Court erred in law in permitting the
same.
16. In order to appreciate the
contentions of the writ petitioner, it is
necessary to have a glimpse of the
provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
well as the Rules on which reliance has
been placed by Mr Shrivastava.
17. Sections 68 and 69 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 fall in Part VIII with
the caption “Works”. These two
provisions directly deal with the overhead
lines. As per Section 68, an overhead line
can be installed or kept installed above
ground “with prior approval of the
appropriate Government”. “Appropriate
Government” is defined under Section
2(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it is
not in dispute that in the instant case, it
would be the Central Government as it is
the Central Government which is the
appropriate Government in respect of a
generating company wholly or partly
owned by it and Power Grid is a company
which is owned by the Central
Government. The argument was that no
such prior approval from the Central
Government was obtained in terms of the
aforesaid provision.
18. We find that this assertion is
factually incorrect. The learned Single
Judge specifically noted that the Power
Grid had obtained prior approval of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Central Government under Section 68(1)
of the Electricity Act, 2003. Though, an
attempt was made that this finding is
incorrect, we do not agree with the said
submission of the writ petitioner as the
learned ASG pointed out to us the
document containing such an approval.
19. Another submission made was that
permission of the writ petitioner was not obtained
which was needed as per Rule 3 of the 2006
Rules. Rule 3(a) reads as under:
“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;”
20. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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 (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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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.
22. Powers of the telegraph authority conferred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
by Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the Telegraph Act,
1885, stand vested in and are enjoyed by the
Power Grid. These provisions are reproduced
below:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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.
***
15 Disputes between telegraph authority
and local authority.—(1) If any dispute
arises between the telegraph authority and
a local authority in consequence of the local
authority refusing the permission referred to
in Section 10 clause (c), or prescribing any
condition under Section 12, or in
consequence of the telegraph authority
omitting to comply with a requisition made
under Section 13, or otherwise in respect of
the exercise of the powers conferred by this
Act, it shall be determined by such officer as
the Central Government may appoint either
generally or specially in this behalf.
(2) An appeal from the determination of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
officer so appointed shall lie to the Central
Government; and the order of the Central
Government shall be final.
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 their being exercised, he shall be
deemed to have committed an offence
under Section 188 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
the same.”
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.
24. As Power Grid is given the powers of
telegraph authority, Rule 3(1) of the 2006 Rules
ceases to apply in the case of Power Grid by
virtue of exception clause contained in sub-rule
(4) of Rule 3 which reads as under:
“3. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall
effect the powers conferred upon any
licensee under Section 164 of the Act.”
25. We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting the
argument of the writ petitioner that the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
action of the Power Grid was contrary to the
provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.”
.... .....
32. In view of the above reasons and particularly
in view of the fact that the challenge to the two
projects are also found to be motivated with
personal interest overriding larger public interest,
we have no hesitation in holding that the Writ
Appeals are devoid of merits and deserve to be
dismissed. We direct the respondents to produce
a copy of this order before all forums, Civil,
Judicial or Quasi Judicial to ensure that the
project or such other projects are not injuncted
from further progress by order of any Court or
any Judicial Authority."
(viii) R.Raja & others Vs. District Collector & others in SLP
(C) No.11596 of 2019 dated 22.07.2019.
In the above, SLP, the order passed by a Division
Bench of this court stood confirmed as against
the petitioners.
(ix) Vai Palanisamy Vs. Union of India & others in
W.A.No.2167 of 2019 dated 29.07.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
"9. The issue in this regard has been discussed in
detail by two Division Benches of this Court by
the aforesaid quoted portions. The position of law
is fairly well settled by the dismissal of the
Special Leave Petition by the Honourable
Supreme Court, wherein it is held that the
projects of public importance like setting up of
power transmission lines do not call for
interference by the Courts of law in the first
instance. As we have seen above, the filing of the
writ petition itself was premature. The petitioners
seems to have made no effort in eliciting the
necessary information from the respondents.
They rather came to the Court to initiate such
enquiry by this Court, which could not have been
encouraged. The right to receive compensation
by the individuals, whose land is being used for
setting up of such power transmission line or
power, is not even in question. The compensation
paid by the respondent Corporation in such case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of
law and there is no dispute on that. It seems the
petitioners / appellants approached this Court on
a foundationless apprehension against the public
notice itself, without making the necessary
enquiry from the respondent Corporation. If their
land was to be used for setting up a transmission
line in question, the compensation procedure and
payment of compensation would have definitely
ensued, but just putting the project of public
importance into litigation seems to have been the
aim of the writ petitioners / appellants. We have
also quoted above the procedure to be adopted
by the Power Grid Corporation, which was duly
quoted by the learned Single Judge as well as the
Coordinate Bench. Whenever the land in question
is identified with the survey numbers, the
respondent Corporation put to notice all the
individuals concerned under the provisions of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
determination of compensation also takes place
on the other hand. Such details of the land were
not only produced before the learned Single
Judge, but was duly noted by the learned Single
Judge in the order impugned before us.
... ....
11. It is indeed unfortunate that the pendency of
this litigation and other similar litigations in such
cases unnecessarily interferes with the execution
of such projects of public importance, even
though there are no stay orders passed in such
cases. Indirect costs are incurred by the public
authorities in the form of escalation of costs by
delay in projects etc., and the public at large are
deprived of the benefit of such projects of public
importance. "
(x) M.Duraisamy Vs. The District Collector & another in
WP (MD) No.17167 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019.
"In this case, the learned Single Judge of this
court has decided the issue as against the
petitioner therein by following the decision in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
R.Raja and others v. The District Collector,
Dharmapuri and others in W.A.No.72 of
2019 dated 11.4.2019."
(xi) Mr.P.Duraisamy Maharajha Rice Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The
District Collector cum District Magistrate in W.A.No.3913 of
2019 dated 25.11.2019.
"6. The power to enter upon any of the land
and erect towers remains undisputed in view of
the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885. Nonetheless, there is no bar for a person,
who contests his claim, otherwise invoking the
common law remedy. But the Act being a
Special Act, also provides for compensatory
relief by moving an application to be considered
by the District Judge concerned. We, therefore,
find that the right to enjoy the property and not
to be dispossessed otherwise than in
accordance with law in view of Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India, has been taken care of
in the 1885 legislation itself. The said Code is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
complete Code and the appellant has remedy to
claim compensatory damages from the
department in the event the appellant is
aggrieved on account of crossing of High
Tension Transmission Line over its lands causing
any damage, which, in our opinion, can always
be compensated in terms of money. We,
therefore, do not intend to assess the alleged
loss or sufferance being complained of by the
appellant in exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. This, therefore, in our opinion, would
not be the appropriate remedy. It is for the
appellant to approach the appropriate forum for
redressal of any grievance and if any such
application is filed, the same shall be dealt with
in accordance with law. "
In addition to the above, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for
Respondents 4 and 6 have relied upon an unreported recent judgment
of a Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1096 and 1098 of 2020 and 970 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
2020 dated 20.1.2021 wherein it has been held as under:-
Judgment 1096 and 1098 of 2020 dated 20.1.2021.
"12. We are concern with the larger public
interest. Secondly, the law on the subject is
quite settled and repeated on number of
occasions by this Court. We do not want to
reproduce the law laid down once again. The
role of the District Collector, while exercising
the power under Section 16 of the Act in an
application filed under Section 10 of the Act, is
very limited, which is to facilitate the completion
of the project by removing the obstruction, if
any. Unfortunately, the District Collector, Karur
has misconstrued the provisions and the role
required to be played by him. As a District
Magistrate, he is not concerned with the
project. He is neither the appellate authority nor
an adjudicating one.
13. The project has been conceived by a
Government of India undertaking, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
conducting elaborate study through an expert
body. Such a wisdom resulting in the project
being conceived is not justifiable nor the same
has been questioned before us. As stated, the
scope and ambit of Section 164 of the Electricity
Act and Sections 10 and 16 of the Act has been
completely misconstrued. We may add that the
learned single Judge has not been furnished
with the appropriate judgments governing the
field, which we are concern with. We do not
wish to say anything more. Even on facts, the
project is almost nearing completion. The
project is to be completed by laying down
towers connecting the overhead lines. Certainly,
there is a public interest involved. The private
respondents are merely executing the work.
Ultimately, the project has been conceived and
to be executed by M/s.Solar Energy Corporation
of India Ltd., which is a Government of India
undertaking. We do not find any malice in law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
or fact. On the question of transparency, we are
not inclined to consider, as the project is
nearing completion.
14. Thus, looking from any perspective,
we are constrained to hold that the District
Collector, Karur is required to pass appropriate
orders to facilitate the completion of the work."
16. The learned Senior Counsels have made it clear that there
was only one approved route alignment drawn by the 5th respondent
and there was no other separate alignment of the year 2017. With
regard to markings in S.Nos.803, 937 of Vavipalayam Village and other
places projected, the learned Senior Counsels have replied that these
markings were made in the Village Road to obtain Geo co-ordinates
using survey instruments through Satellites and they are only the
reference points to carry out the survey works and those marks are
not indicating any route alignment.
17. The fifth respondent/District Collector has filed a separate
counter affidavit wherein he has made it clear that notice for the
enquiry was served personally on the petitioners, however, they had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
refused to receive the same and remained absent for the enquiry as
per the report of of the Tahsildar, Palladam and therefore, he had to
proceed with the enquiry and in the enquiry, he found from the
explanation about the project by the officials of the Power Grid
Corporation that the demand raised by the petitioners to alter the
route alignment is not feasible and the route alignment has been
approved on the basis of techno economic consideration only.
18. Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
impleading petitioners / land owners has made a submission that the
original route is only through their lands and they are not having any
objections for laying of towers through their lands.
19. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
20. The Respondent Power Grid Corporation, a Government of
India Enterprise under the Ministry of Power incorporated as a
Government Company has been entrusted with the task of
construction of Raigarh-Pugalur 6000 MW HVDC System with a 800 kV
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
HVDC Transmission Line without any tapping in between connecting
Raigarh in the State of Chattisgarh and Pugalur in the State of Tamil
Nadu in order to facilitate evacuation and transfer of power from
various Generation plants located in the State of Chhattisgarh,
Maharashtra, Telengana, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The total
cost of the project is about Rs.21,735 crores. This Project is executed
at three stages as under:-
I) Raigarh-Pugalur 6000 MW High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC)
System;
II) Associated 400 kV High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) System
strengthening at Pugalur end and
III) Pugalur-Trissur 2000 MW VSC based High Voltage Direct Current
(HVDC) System.
21. The total live length of this Project is 1765.04 kms and out of
this 345 kms passes through the State of Tamilnadu in Scheme II. The
dispute involved in this writ petition is with the live length of about 52
Kms. routed through Coimbatore and Tiruppur. In this route, out of
149 required towers, the foundation work for 133 towers have already
been completed and erection of 1200 towers is also completed and
the construction works of an extent of 23 kms is also completed. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Tirupur District, out of 91 required towers, foundation works for upto
77 towers have already been completed. According to the learned
Senior Counsels appearing for the Power Grid Corporation, 80% of the
works in the disputed area have already been completed. The dispute
is with regard to locations for 11 towers and the towers with regard to
preceding locations and the succeeding locations have also been
completed.
22. The major grounds raised by the writ petitioners is that there
was an alignment originally prepared in the year 2017 and in order to
satisfy some influential persons, the alignments have been changed
and therefore, the petitioners are having objections for the erection of
towers and on the other hand, the land owners in respect of the
original alignment are not having any objections for erection of towers
in their lands. Despite the same, the Power Grid Corporation is
proceeding with the construction in the second alignment and their
representations to the competent authority were not at all considered
and the impugned order is passed without a fair opportunity to the
petitioners.
23. On the above grounds raised by the writ petitioners, this
court frames the following issues for deciding this case:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
i) Whether there was any original alignment in the year
2017 and whether the Power Grid corporation is changing
their alignment in order to suit the convenience of any
powerful individuals?
ii) Whether the petitioners/land owners are entitled for
any notice before passing the impugned order under the
Telegraph Act granting permission to enter upon?
iii) Whether there is any violation of principles of natural
justice on the audi alteram partem?
24. Issue No.1:- Whether there was any original alignment
in the year 2017 and whether the Power Grid corporation is
changing their alignment in order to suit the convenience of
any powerful individuals?
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the original alignment was fixed by the Corporation in the year 2017
and the same has been approved but, for some reasons best known
and probably in order to favour some individuals, the route has been
deviated. In support of his contention, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned
counsel for the petitioners relied on certain markings made by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Power Grid Corporation in S.Nos.201, 203 of Palanigoundanpalayam
and S.No.288 of Kosavampalayam Village and S.Nos.803 and 937 of
Vavipalayam Village. In support of his contention, he has also relied on
certain photographs taken in certain properties which are said to have
been taken in the said Survey numbers. The learned counsel also
relied on certain portions of the counter affidavit with regard to
alignments prepared by the Corporation in the year 2017.
25. In response to this contention, the learned Senior Counsels
appearing for the Power Grid Corporation made an elaborate argument
as to how this alignment has been fixed by the Corporation. While
fixing the transmission route line the Corporation is considering
various parameters such as
a)Minimal impact on the environment;
b)Avoiding inhabitant area to the extent possible;
c)Least impact on the crop and plantation;
d)Crossing the EHT line at an angle as close to 90 degree
e)Crossing the National Highways at an angle as close to 90
degrees etc.,
f)Avoiding places of worship etc.;
g)Avoiding Natural water bodies and Parks, etc.;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
h)Most economical route.
26. Apart from this, the Power Grid Corporation is also adopting
the following procedures :-
(i) A straight line called "BEE LINE" is drawn from point to point (i.e.)
sending end substation to receiving end substation.
(ii) POWER GRID Engineers go along the 'BEE LINE' as nearly as
possible, avoiding settlements, Railway line, Road crossing, River,
Forest etc. (i.e., a walk over survey is conducted).
(iii) Propose three alternate routes to find out which is the most
economically and technically feasible route. (During this process,
approximate Angle points are also fixed using Global Positioning
System (GPS).
(iv) The above exercises are shown in Topographical Maps issued
by Survey of India.
(v) The next stage is whatever is there in the Map is transferred
to the ground viz., marked in the ground.
(vi) The angle points are fixed on ground by using Global
Positioning System (GPS) instruments.
(vii) A detailed survey is conducted. For every 20 meters, ground
level measurement is taken & Geographical details are collected and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
line peg mark fixed.
(viii) A profile is made on the above details. Normally, the space
between two towers is 400 meters. The span will depend on the
ground level, road, railway track, river and settlements and technical
aspects.
(ix) Then the tower schedule is prepared.
(x) On due approval of the above, check survey is done.
(xi) Exact tower point is fixed with the help of survey instrument.
[It is only at that stage, we know the exact survey number over
which the tower is to be located]
(xii) After fixing the tower location, the details
as to the ownership/details of owners of affected lands
are obtained from the Revenue Authorities.
27. After following the above said procedures, the most techno-
economical route is chosen without causing damage for the places of
inhabitation, Worship and available corridors to the maximum possible
extent. The learned Senior Counsels have also produced the approved
order for route alignment of 400 KV HVAC line connecting Pugalur
Station to Tiruvallam Sub-Station dated 1.10.2017. Vide this order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
approval, the route I is compared with two other routes viz., route II
and III as alternative routes and route I is found to be techno-
economical route. This route is passing though Windmills shown and
80% of this route which is around 7 kms runs through coconut grove
and this process is completed by a walkover survey and the same was
thoroughly verified by the Power Grid Corporation Team jointly with
an Agency.
28. This route alignment, according to the Power Grid
Corporation has been decided considering various features with the
alternative routes proposed by the Agency i.e., route II and III and
also considering the Windmill location, settlement along the State
Highways and scattered settlement in villages, this route I being the
shortest possible route along BEE LINE has been identified. The District
Collector has no authority to change the alignment and give a new
route for transmission of electricity especially when the experts of
Electricity Board asserted that the original alignment proposed was the
best alignment in the interest of public at large.
29. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsels have also relied
on the decision of this court in the judgment reported in 2013 (1) MLJ
56 cited supra, has clearly pointed out that the District Collector is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
vested with the power to suggest a different route either under Section
16 or 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The power of the District
Collector is more in the nature of execution of the decision taken under
Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the District Collector
has no authority to change the alignment and can suggest a new
route. They would further submit that there was no straight line
route approved in the year 2017 as claimed by the petitioners and
there is only one approved route alignment in the year 2019 and this
route alignment projected by the petitioners is an imaginary route to
avoid the overhead lines over their lands.
30. With regard to the photographs produced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners with certain markings that it was the
markings made in S.Nos.803, 937 of Vavipalayam Village and other
places projected, the respondent Power Grid Corporation has pointed
out in their counter that those markings are made in the Village route
to obtain Geo Coordinates using survey instruments through Satellites
and they are only the reference points to carry out the survey works
and those marks are not indicating any route alignment. It is also
pointed out that excepting the petitioners lands, the foundation works
for erection of towers in the preceding section/locations and in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
succeeding section/locations have already been completed. The
learned Senior Counsels have also pointed out that after following the
detailed procedures on the alignment, the tower schedule is prepared
and these tower points are fixed with the help of Surveyor. They would
further submit that only after fixing the tower location, the details of
the ownership of the land could be collected from the Revenue
Authorities and at the time of fixing the polls, the Authorities will not
be having the exact survey numbers, the extent of the land and the
identity of the owners. Therefore, the averment that this original
alignment which has been prepared in the year 2017 and it has been
altered for the convenience of some land owners is not correct.
31. Though the learned counsel or the petitioners has projected
that there was an original line drawn and it has been altered, no
substantial material has been placed to accept the contention. It is the
case of the petitioners that in order to facilitate a Windmill Tower, the
route has been diverted in a triangle manner to protect the existing
tower. In fact, the Power Grid Corporation has taken three routes
along the three possible routes along the BEE LINE (Straight Line) and
also considered various aspects like Windmill towers, habitations,
coconut grove, etc. Even in the approved plan, there are many
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Windmill turbines nearby the route and also in the original alignment
projected by the petitioners, a turbine is very much available on the
line and there are so many habitations existing in the said alignment.
Neither the District Collector nor this court is technically competent to
decide which route is technically feasible. The finalisation of route of
transmission line is based on technicalities and the transmission in
towers runs to several hundreds of Kilometres and majority of the
work appears to be completed and the towers on the preceding
sections and succeeding sections have also been completed. in view of
specific findings of the Division Bench, this court could not decide the
issue in favour of the petitioners and rejects their contention.
32. Issue No.2:- Whether the petitioners/land owners are
entitled for any notice before passing the impugned order
under the Telegraph Act granting permission to enter upon?
On this issue, a Division Bench of this Court in S.Selvaraj –Vs-
The District Collector, Erode District and others etc dated
16.07.2019 in W.A.No.2032 of 2019 wherein a similar issue was
involved with a similar request on the same project but, in some other
area, has elaborately dealt with and with regard to the requirement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
a notice to the landlords has also been discussed and held as follows:-
"13. Section 10 that grants authority only for the
limited purpose of establishing or maintaining a
telegraph. It does not provide any other right to the
telegraph authority. It is only a user in respect of
the property over, which a telegraph line passes. By
exercising such power, the authority does not
become owner of the property and all that it gets is
right of user of the property. The Section does not
contemplate any notice or hearing before exercising
such power to draw a telegraph line, although it
envisages payment of compensation. However, it
would not make exercise of power under Section
10, arbitrary or violative of the principles of Natural
Justice as contemplated under Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution. The right to property under Article
300A is a Constitutional right. It is not absolute and
it can be taken away by authority of law.
14. But Section 10 of the Telegraph Act,
1885, does not take away any right to property. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
only creates some restrictions on the enjoyment of
right to property by creating a right of user in the
telegraph authority. Proviso (a) to Section 10
restricts the power of the telegraph authority only
to the draw a telegraph line. It does not grant the
Authority provision to use the power for any other
purpose. The object is to provide to the Government
or to any other licensee to place telegraph lines and
posts which are projects, eminently in public
interest. Further, under Proviso (d) the Authority
should cause as little damage as possible while
undertaking the work. It also mandates that the
Authority must pay compensation to the affected
person for the damage caused by reason of exercise
of the power. Thus, Section 10 prescribes a just and
fair procedure for placing limitations on full
enjoyment of property. It therefore, cannot be said
to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 or
300-A of the Constitution of India, just because it
does not contain any provision for issuance of notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
or giving hearing to affected person before the work
is undertaken.
15. When the provision of Section 10 is read
with Sections 16 and 17, it would become clear that
under the scheme of Part-III of the Telegraphic Act,
1885 a balance has been struck between the
necessity of public interest and the individual need
by addressing the grievance of the aggrieved.
Notice and hearing have to be read in these sections
as they confer a discretion upon the District
Magistrate to adjudicate on the justifiability of the
objection or acceptability of the suggestion and no
public authority can exercise a discretion arbitrarily.
Any exercise of such discretion is likely to have
ripple effects and civil consequences for the owner
or occupier of the private land on the one hand and
the escalation in cost and delay in execution on the
other hand. Therefore, provision of fair opportunity
of hearing in exercise of such a discretion is in
consonance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 21.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
We hold that Section 10 by virtue of Sections 16
and 17, on the whole provides for a fair procedure
for a partial deprivation of right to property and
simultaneous right to TANTRANSCO to enter upon
the property only as an user to lay electric Towers.
16. We are conscious of the fact that
finalization of route of transmission line is a highly
technical and specialized subject. Also, the route of
transmission line in this case runs into several
hundreds of kilometers and it passes over different
lands of different persons.
17. TANTRANSCO had acquired only right of
user in the lands in question and that too in lieu of
payment of full compensation for the damages
caused. The Rule of Natural Justice is subserved by
the procedure laid down in Part III, particularly in
Sections 10, 16 and 17 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Thus, we find that it is not necessary to give notice
to the owners or occupants of private lands at the
time of finalization of the route of the transmission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
line or even at the time of commencement of the
project."
33. In view of the above specific finding of this court in the
above referred decision, this court holds that no notice is required to
be issued by the respondent.
34. Issue No.3:- Whether there is any violation of principles
of natural justice on the audi alteram partem?
The impugned order came to be passed on 28.10.2020 after
issuing notice of enquiry on 15.10.2020 and it was communicated in
letter No.Na.Ka.10324/2020 E5 and the landlords have refused to
receive the notice and in this regard, the Tahsildar, Palladam also
submitted a report to the District Collector in his letter
No.Na.Ka.2706/2020/A2 dated 19.10.020 and thereafter, the enquiry
was conducted by the District Collector and the order to enter upon
was issued. The fifth respondent District Collector has also filed a
counter affidavit and the same has been incorporated in the counter
affidavit filed by the fifth respondent.
35. Though the petitioners have taken out a plea that in order to
protect some influential landlords, the route has been deviated, the
petitioners having referred to the said survey numbers in whose land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
the proposed original alignment was made, on the other hand, has
taken a stand that all the land owners in the original alignment have
given their consent for erection of towers, through their
unobjectionable land, however, the Power Grid Corporation is
proceeding with the present alignment. Some of the land owners have
also filed impleading petition in W.M.P.Nos.1301 and 1389 of 2021 in
support of this contention of the petitioners and Mr.Issac Mohanlal,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for them, by pointing out a Grama
Sabha Resolution and the markings referred by the petitioners,
reiterated the stand of the petitioners and has submitted that the
impleading petitioners/land owners on the original alignment are not
having any objection for erection of towers through their land. When
the Power Grid Corporation has made out a case that this alignment
has been made scientifically by conducting a detailed survey on
various parameters and has also been approved by the competent
authority, this court cannot consider the case of the petitioner as well
as the impleading petitioners that there was a original alignment as
projected by the petitioners and the Grama Sabha.
36. In this regard, Mr.Elumalai, learned Additional Government
Pleader, who assisted the court, on behalf of the State has produced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
the relevant documents on the attempt made by the fifth respondent
in serving the notice to the petitioners and has proceeded after their
refusal as discussed above. This contention with regard to the service
of notice has not been denied by the petitioners in their common
rejoinder filed by them on 19.10.2001 and this court has also decided
the issue that the petitioners are not entitled for a notice before
passing the impugned order under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act.
37. A perusal of the records reveals that subsequent to that a
representation was made by the petitioners on 24.11.2020 and in that
representation, it is contended that the VAO has produced summons
for enquiry and villagers have also read the contents of the summons
and there were so many mistakes in the summons such as notice to
different person, mentioning survey number as 203/17 instead of
S.N.203/7 and instead of Ponnusamy, it is mentioned as
Kumarasamy, etc. When the petitioners were aware of the enquiry
and has also perused the contents of the summons and they have
abstained from participating in the enquiry, whatever their objections
may be, they should have participated in the enquiry and submitted
their views in the enquiry. After keeping away from the enquiry, the
petitioners are not entitled to agitate by contending that there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the third issue is
also decided in favour of the respondents that there is no violation of
principles of natural justice.
38. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However the
District Collector shall hold an enquiry with regard to payment of
compensation to be paid to the petitioners for their lands and order a
fair compensation within a period of not more than two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
10.3.2021.
Index: Yes/No.
mrm/ssk.
To
1.The Union of India,
rep by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Power,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2.Central Electricity Authority,
Ministry of Power,
Government of India,
Rep by its Chairman,
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi - 110 066.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary to the Government,
Energy Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
4.Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
B-9, Qutab Institutional Area,
Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi - 110 016.
5.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
6.The Chief Manager,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
Coimbatore Main Road, K.Paramathy (Post),
Karur District - 639 111.
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
8.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Palladam Range, Tiruppur District.
9.The Tahsildar,
Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI,J.
mrm/ssk.
P.D. Order delivered on
W.P.No.19113 of 2020
Delivered on
10.3.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
