[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 April, 2026
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
CWP-34124-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(215-1) CWP-34124-2025 (O&M)
Bhupinder Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
(215-2) CWP-39749-2025
Narinder Singh Aulakh and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only Whether the full
Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on the operative judgment is
part of the pronounced
judgment is
pronounced
06.02.2026 28.04.2026 29.04.2026 No Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate,
Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate and
Mr. Bhairav Gautam, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in both cases.
Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1 in both cases.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana and
Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 5 in both cases.
Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for
Mr. P.S.Miglani, Advocate,
for respondent No.6 in both cases.
****
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.04.29 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
CWP-34124-2025 (O&M) -2-
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
(1) By way of this singular order, this Court proposes to dispose of both the
above noted petitions as they involve common questions of law and facts. For
the sake of convenience, factual position is being taken from CWP-34124-
2025.
(2) This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for
quashing order dated 14.10.2025, Annexure P-11, whereby respondent No.3
has rejected a request for alteration of approved route for installation of Loop-
In Loop-out (LILO) of 220 kV transmission line from Hukmawali-Chormar,
Sub Station to BBMB line. A further prayer has been made for a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to consider the site plan, Annexure P-4,
suggested by petitioner as it is shorter and economical.
(3) Pleaded case of petitioner is that he is an agriculturist of village Vedwala
and owns an agricultural land. According to him, respondents have started the
process of installation of transmission line and by connecting the main BBMB
Hisar-Sirsa line. Specific grievance of petitioner is that instead of connecting
the transmission line through tower TL-292, which according to petitioner is in
the straight line and a shorter route, respondents have chosen to connect it
through TL-295, thereby taking the transmission line close to populated area of
the village. The foundation of the allegation is that respondent No.5, who was
posted as Executive Engineer, has manipulated the route to save the land of his
relative, respondent No.6. Reliance has been placed upon notification dated
10.07.2024, Annexure P-3, pertaining to compensation for damages for laying
66 kV and above overhead transmission lines as well as upon site plan,
Annexure P-4, and jamabandis, Annexure P-5. Complaints and representations
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
CWP-34124-2025 (O&M) -3-
have been submitted by petitioner, which have resulted in the passing of the
impugned order dated 14.10.2025, Annexure P-11.
(4) Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by respondents No.2 to 5-
HVPNL by filing a short reply. It has been deposed that the project was
conceptualized in the year 2018 in a joint meeting between the officials of
HVPNL as well as Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited
(RRVPNL). A decision was taken on 23.05.2018, Annexure R-2/1, which was
approved on 07.06.2018, Annexure R-2/2, that a portion of existing 132 kV
line, that is, Towers No.295 to 307 are required to be converted into multi
circuit tower transmission line. Notification dated 02.07.2019, Annexure R-2/3,
was published in the Gazette as well as two newspapers, but no objections were
received. A specific stand has been taken that after conducting a detailed
survey by HARSAC, it was found that the proposed route was the best possible
plan to connect the transmission lines. After approval, tender for erection of
transmission line was floated. Respondent No.5 was given the additional
charge of Executive Engineer, TS Division, Sirsa for the first time on
20.09.2022, much later after the final decision had been taken. The work was
allotted to a private concern for erection of 61 towers out of which 46 towers
have been erected.
(5) Having heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the paper-book,
this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Relief sought by petitioner in
substance is not merely for setting aside communication, Annexure P-11, but
for judicial intervention in the approved transmission alignment with the route
proposed by him. It may be stated that matters concerning technical alignment
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
CWP-34124-2025 (O&M) -4-
of transmission lines, route optimization, tower location, right of way, safety
concerns, population constraints and engineering feasibility are pre-dominantly
within the domain of the competent technical authorities. This Court neither
has an expertise nor the means to determine as to what would be the possible
route for laying of the transmission lines. Notification dated 10.07.2024,
Annexure P-3, does not advance the case of petitioner as it provides for
determination of compensation for Right of Way and for damage to crops and
diminution in value of land due to installation of transmission lines of 66 kV
and above.
(6) In so far as the allegation of malafide against respondent No.5 is
concerned, it stands established on the record that respondent No.5 was neither
posted at the Sub-Station concerned, nor was he involved in the preparation of
the plans. He was given the charge of Executive Engineer, TS Division, Sirsa
for the first time in September, 2022, by which time most of the decisions
regarding the project had already been taken and were in the process of being
implemented. Petitioner has not been able to establish the malafides with
specificity or refer to any clear cogent and convincing material. Mere reliance
upon the site plan or revenue entries and relationship with respondent No.6,
would not establish the malafides alleged by petitioner. Allegations being
unsubstantiated, stand rejected. The argument of the counsel on basis of
Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 also does not persuade this Court to
intervene. No material has been shown to support as to whether any specific
statutory rule, executive instruction or procedure has been breached, which
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
CWP-34124-2025 (O&M) -5-
would vitiate the approved route line. In the absence of any violation of
mandatory procedural requirement, the argument is too broad, to support the
relief claimed. Challenge to order, Annexure P-11, on the ground that it is non-
speaking would not help the petitioner. Order, Annexure P-11, is a merely
communication to petitioner in response to various complaints and
representations submitted by him. It is not in the nature of an administrative
order, which is required to be supported with reasons. Rather by this impugned
communication, HVPNL has requested the petitioner to cooperate with
completion of the project and permit its execution.
(7) In the second writ petition (CWP-39749-2025), petitioners have also laid
challenge to public notice dated 26.06.2019 as well as the Government
notification dated 02.07.2019. The public notice and notification were issued
way back in the year 2019, whereas the writ petition has been filed in 2025
after the project has substantially progressed through survey, tendering, award
of work and advanced execution of the contract. A stray challenge to the public
notice and notification after the project has moved far beyond the
conceptualization cannot be entertained in exercise of equitable writ
jurisdiction. It has been established on the record that no objections to the
notification dated 02.07.2019 were ever raised by any of the affected parties,
including petitioners. Therefore, the attempt of petitioners to challenge the said
public notice and notification at this belated stage is rejected.
(8) Once the competent authority has finalized a route after technical
processing, Court should be slow to unsettle the same, unless a clear case of
illegality is made out. The route of the transmission line cannot be re-laid at the
asking or whims and fancies of the petitioner, merely because the transmission
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
CWP-34124-2025 (O&M) -6-
line would pass through his land. Direction sought for by petitioner cannot be
issued in the absence of any compelling material showing manifest,
arbitrariness or statutory infraction. Writ jurisdiction is meant to examine the
legality of decision making process not to choose between different available
options. This Court is of the firm view that no case for intervention is made out.
(9) For the afore-going reasons, both the writ petitions are dismissed, though
with no order as to costs.
(10) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
28.04.2026
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
