Madras High Court

Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs R.Mohanraj on 1 August, 2024

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.08.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos.9407 & 9298 of 2022

[W.A.No.1435 of 2022]

1. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Rep. by its General Manager,
No.3/3/27-B, Bharathi Nagar,
Salem Main Road (Near Bus Stand),
Sankari-637301, Salem District.

2. The Deputy General Manager,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
400/230 KV Substation,
Coimbatore Main Road,
K.Paramathy Post, Karur-639011. ... Appellants

Vs.

1. R.Mohanraj

2. T.Shanmugavadivelan

3. C.Periasamy

4. The District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

Prayer :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 21.04.2022 passed in WP No.31793 of 2019.

[W.A.No.1458 of 2022]

1. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Rep. by its General Manager,
No.3/3/27-B, Bharathi Nagar,
Salem Main Road (Near Bus Stand),
Sankari-637301, Salem District.

2. The Deputy General Manager,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
400/230 KV Substation,
Coimbatore Main Road,
K.Paramathy Post, Karur-639011. ... Appellants

Vs.

1. N.Mohanraj

2. A.S. Paramasivam

3. C.N. Ponnusamy

4. C.K. Pongiappan

5. K. Palanisamy

6. C.M. Ganesan

7. The District Collector
Namakkal District, Namakkal.. ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

Prayer :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 21.04.2022 passed in WP No.31785 of 2019.

For Appellants in
both the petitions : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, ASGOI,
assisted by Mr.V.Kalyana Raman
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia

For Respondents in
both the petitions : Mr.S.Senthil (for R1 to R6);

: Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate
(for R7)

COMMON JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The writ appeals have been instituted by the Power Grid

Corporation of India limited challenging the common order pronounced

on 21.04.2022 in W.P.No.31793 & 31785 of 2019.

2. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India,

Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, assisted by Mr.V.Kalyana Raman, learned Standing

Counsel for the appellants would submit that the Writ Court allowed the

writ petition mainly on the premise that W.P.No.13445 of 2010 dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

13.08.2019 was allowed. In other words, relying on the judgement in the

case of N.Baskar vs. Power Grid Corporation of India dated 13.08.2019

in W.P.No.13445 of 2010, the impugned writ order was passed.

3. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India brought to the

notice of this Court that the said order of the Writ Court have been

reversed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeal No.380

of 2020 dated 18.08.2021. In the said appeal filed by the Power Grid

Corporation of India vs. N.Baskar, the Division Bench made the

following observations.

“5. We are concerned with the interpretation of
two provisions, namely, Section 10(d) and 16(3).
Section 10(d) comes under Part III of the Indian
Telegraph Act, which deals with the power of the
Telegraphic Authority to place telegraphic line and
posts. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ
petitioner, Section 10(d) imposes a responsibility on the
telegraph authority to make sure that any property
which it deals with is put into a little damage as
possible while exercising its power. Therefore, the
legislature in its wisdom has widened the scope to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

include ?any property? and, therefore, ?any damage?.
As the provision is couched with a wider connotation,
restrictive meaning is contrary to the object and
rationale leading to its interpretation.

6. Section 10(d) has to be read in conjunction
with Section 16(3). Section 16(3) speaks of ?any
dispute?. Therefore, one has to concern with the
disputes between the owner and the telegraphic
authority. We cannot define the dispute in a restrictive
way. Such definition is not meant to be introduced
under Section 16(3) and that is the reason why it clearly
says that any dispute between the parties while
exercising the power by the telegraphic authority under
Section 10(d). Therefore, Section 10(d) imposes an
element of responsibility to the telegraphic authority
asking it to exercise caution and restraint with respect
to a possible damage to any property, any dispute in the
exercise of such a power would be amenable to Section
16(3). The word -sufficiency of compensation- has also
to be given a wider interpretation. When we speak
about the sufficiency of compensation it will also
include the case of no-compensation as well. Otherwise
not only Section 10(d) but Section 16 would become
redundant and otiose. There is no difficulty in
understanding the aforesaid provision in Section 16(3),

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

which confers the power on the District Court to
adjudicate upon any dispute between the telegraphic
authority on the one hand and the owner on the other
hand.

7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to
permit the first respondent/writ petitioner to approach
the District Court within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by
invoking Section 16(3) by making an application. On
such application, we expect the jurisdictional District
Court to decide all the issues on the question of
sufficiency of the compensation provided the writ
petitioner would be able to show the damage.

8. The writ appeal stands disposed of
accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.

9. In view of the limited scope involved, we expect
the jurisdictional District Court to dispose of the
application to be filed by the first respondent/writ
petitioner within a period of four months from the date
of receipt of such application.”

4. The judgemnt of the Division Bench had not been brought to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

notice of the Writ Court at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.

Thus, the Writ Court proceeded on merits. The Division Bench relegated

the parties to approach the appellate authority under Section 16(3) of

Telegraph Act. Instead of relegating the parties to approach the appellate

authority, the Writ Court adjudicated the issues on merits and granted

compensation, which, in our opinion, is running counter to the decision in

the case of N.Baskar in Writ Appeal No.380 of 2020 dated 18.08.2021.

5. Thus, the writ order impugned dated 21.04.2022 in

W.P.Nos.31793 & 31785 of 2019 is set aside and the respondents are at

liberty to approach the District Court for the redressal of their grievances

in the manner contemplated. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

(S.M.S.J.,) (C.K.J.,)
01.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
(sha)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

1. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Rep. by its General Manager,
No.3/3/27-B, Bharathi Nagar,
Salem Main Road (Near Bus Stand),
Sankari-637301, Salem District.

2. The Deputy General Manager,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
400/230 KV Substation,
Coimbatore Main Road,
K.Paramathy Post, Karur-639011.

3. The District Collector
Namakkal District, Namakkal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/9
W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

(sha)

W.A.Nos.1435 & 1458 of 2022

01.08.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis