M/S Om Packaging Industries vs Union Of India And Others on 2 July, 2025

[Cites 32, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

M/S Om Packaging Industries vs Union Of India And Others on 2 July, 2025

Since common question of facts and law are involved in both these petitions, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ 2 Petition (M/S) No. 1914 of 2024 shall be referred to, unless otherwise specifically mentioned in the judgment.

2. In both these petitions, the petitioners seek mandamus to quash the proposed Right of Way ("ROW") and proposed map transmission line at the diversion of Koteshwar- Meerut CKT-1 of 765 KV bearing chainage no. 4+750, Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The petitioners also seek directions for diverting the proposed High Tension transmission line ("HT transmission line") away from the overhead of the petitioners premises.

3. Fact necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:-

The petitioner is running a factory. He came to know that the proposed HT transmission line is supposed to cross overhead the factory. In furtherance to which, the job work has also been assigned to the respondent no.5, The IRCON International Limited ("the IRCON International". The petition is mainly based on the following grounds:-

(i) The HT transmission line is right overhead the factory premises of the petitioner.

(ii) The proposed route for HT transmission line is divided in to four channels from proposed AP 01 to AP 04, in which the line passing from AP 01 to AP 02 crosses the petitioner factory overhead, which may cause unimaginable damages to the lives and property of the petitioner, 3

(iii) No alternative route/ROW was proposed by the licensee i.e. respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation of India ("the Power Grid Corporation").

(iv) Notices were to be served to land owners for construction of the HT transmission line and only after the NOC from the land owners, the said project is to be initiated. Whereas in the instant case, neither the petitioners were approached, nor they were intimated of the proposed HT transmission line by the respondents.

(v) No summons and intimations were given to the petitioners or public nearby for inquiry or survey in the vicinity of the petitioners compound, which is in violation of the Telegraph Act, 1885 ("the Telegraph Act"), the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Electricity Act") and also in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

(vi) The proposed HT transmission line is solely proposed due to proposed Haridwar Ring Road. Therefore, the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 are applicable and it was mandatory for the respondent no.2, the State of Uttarakhand to issue 30 days notice for inviting public comments for seeking claims and objections, which was not done in the instant matters.

(vii) The proposed HT transmission line was not sanctioned with appropriate scientific temperament 4 by using Techno Economical consideration as is mandatory under the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act.

(viii) The HT transmission line is in violation to Rule 3 and 10 of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006, whereby the consent of the owner is to be taken before finalisation of ROW.

(ix) The proposed HT transmission line does not maintain the statutory guidelines in terms of maintaining the heights from the existing buildings.

(x) It was imperative for the respondents to consult the respondent no.2, the State Government with respect to the ROW for eliminating or reducing the risk of personal injury to any person, or damage to any property.

(xi) The survey allegedly conducted by the respondents is an eyewash and the same is not in conformity with the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations,2023 ("CEA Regulations, 2023").

(xii) In the instant case, Regulation 63 of the CEA Regulations, 2023 has not been followed; no document has been placed by the respondents to show that the proposed ROW is the only or best available option.

(xiii) The proposed HT transmission line is in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India alongwith Sections 67, 68, 69 and 164 of the Electricity Act and Sections 10 to 16 of the Telegraph Act and Government Orders issued in this behalf. Therefore, it is liable to be declared arbitrary, unjust, unlawful and deserves to be quashed.

4. The respondent no.3, the National Highways Authority of India ("the NHAI") and the respondent no.5, the IRCON International have filed their counter affidavits. According to them, the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which stipulates that no suit shall be enforced against any person or any third party in any court, unless the firm is registered. The following grounds have also been taken by the respondents in their respective counter affidavits:-

(i) The petitioner is only entitled for compensation or any damages for the land in question as per Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act read with Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, which will be in addition to the compensation towards normal crop and tree damages.

(ii) The writ petition is also not maintainable in view of alternate remedy to the petitioner as they may approach the appropriate Commission under the Electricity Act read with Rules made by the Government from time to time.

(iii) The respondent no.5 IRCON International by way of contract from the NHAI has carried and executed the entire work of utility shifting strictly as per the Procedural Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power dated 10.03.2023 as well as the other safety norms.

(iv) The proposed HT transmission line was prepared by a team of experts in accordance with the safety norms notified by the Central Electricity Authority ("the CEA"), which was accordingly submitted for approval through the NHAI.

(v) According to the proposed HT transmission line, three wires or overhead line of 765 KV chainage are to be placed between tower number AP 01 and AP 02, out of which, two lines are to be passing/crossing over the barren cum vacant land. Whereas only one outer wire will be crossing over the minor corner of the alleged structure. Further the same shall be laid in compliance of CEA Regulations 2023.

5. According to the respondent nos. 3 and 5, the writ petition is misconceived on the basis of presumptions and surmises and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6. The respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation, in its separate counter affidavit has averred that the Power Grid Corporation has been conferred the power of the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, vide Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2003 under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the respondent no.4, the Power 7 Grid Corporation of India is authorised to enter the premises of any person in exercise of the power under Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. The respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation has also raised the following points in its counter affidavit:-

(i) If any dispute arises regarding the sufficiency of the compensation, the aggrieved party may file application under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act before the concerned District Judge.

(ii) The 765 KV Koteshwar- Meerut CKT-1 transmission line has been erected way back on 01.03.2011. But, for the extension of the National Highway-334 in the style of Haridwar Ring Road, it was necessary in the public interest to shift/extension of height for the safety of public at large.

(iii) A joint route survey was meticulously conducted in the matter and based on the survey, a techno commercially viable and optimal route was selected;

the existing Koteshwar-Meerut Line -1 expands to total length of 178.5 Km comprising 466 towers in total. Out of these, only four towers are being diverted due to widening of NH-334/Haridwar Ring Road. This diversion is confined to mere 1 Km stretch. The proposed route was selected with due diligence, incorporating all necessary safety measures and adhering to the principles of Techno economical feasibility.

7. After amendment of the pleading by the petitioner, the respondent no.4 had filed a supplementary counter affidavit and in para 2 of it, categorically averred that the survey was conducted and the present route is most techno commercially viable optimal route; no provisions of the CEA Regulations, 2023 were violated in the matter.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by laying the HT transmission line, the petitioners are deprived of running their business; The HT transmission line would endanger the safety of the workers and it will also obstruct the fullest enjoyment of the property by the petitioners. Therefore, before laying such HT transmission line, the land was required to be acquired and compensation was to be paid to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to Section 2 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") to argue that even for the transmission purposes land is required to be acquired.

10. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents it is argued that in view of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, in such matters, the provisions of Telegraph Act would come into play; vide Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2003 the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation has been conferred with these powers. It is further submitted that under 2013 Act, the land is required to be acquired only when the land is required for use, hold and control.

11. In the instant case, it is argued that in view of Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, land need not be acquired and in view of Section 10 9

(d) of the Telegraph Act, compensation is payable, which if disputed, may be decided by the District Judge under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act.

12. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others, (2017) 5 SCC 143, Century Rayon Limited vs. IVP Limited and others, (2021) 20 SCC 758 and Bahra Education and Charitable Society, through Sh. Gurvinder Singh Bahra and Others Vs. Himanchal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, through its Chairperson and others, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 8124.

13. In the case of Century Textiles (supra), on the question of acquisition of the property or compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the provisions and in para 23, observed as follows:-

"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."

14. In the cases of Century Rayon Limited (supra) and Bahra Education and Charitable Society (supra), the same principles of law have been followed.

15. The question is as to whether before laying the HT transmission line, the respondents are required to acquire the land under 2013 Act and to pay compensation accordingly? 10

16. Section 2 (1) of the 2013 Act reads as follows:-

"2. Application of Act.- (1) The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, shall apply, when the appropriate Government acquires land for its own use , hold and control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely:-

(a) for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force, and armed forces of the Union, including central paramilitary forces or any work vital to national security or defence of India or State police, safety of the people; or

(b) for infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely:-

(i) all activities or items listed in the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section) number 13/62009-INF, dated the 27th March, 2012, excluding private hospitals, private educational institutions and private hotels:.................................................................................

........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ..........................................................................................

(c)...........................................................................................

(d).......................................................................................

(e)........................................................................................

(f)......................................................................................."

17. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of 2013 Act shall come into play only when the appropriate Government acquires the land for its own use, hold and control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public purpose.

18. In the instant case, admittedly, the land of the petitioners is not required for use, hold and control by the respondents. Only HT transmission line is to be laid over the property of the petitioners. Therefore, the provisions of 2013 Act will not apply in the instant case.

19. Section 164 of the Electricity Act is as follows:- 11

"164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.- The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper 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, 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."

20. In the case of Century Textiles (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the powers of the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation on this aspect and in para 21 observed as follows:-

"21. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the aforesaid provision, the appropriate Government has conferred the powers of telegraph authority vide Notification dated 24-12-2003 exercisable under the Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the Power Grid. It may also be mentioned that a Central transmission utility (CTU) is a deemed licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central transmission utility and is, therefore, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. This coupled with the fact that Power Grid is treated as authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested in a telegraph authority under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of power transmission lines. As per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest. Electrification of villages all over the country and availability of telegraph lines are the most essential requirements for growth and development of any country, economy and the well-being/progress of the citizens. The legislature has not permitted any kind of 12 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."

21. It is not in dispute that powers have been conferred on the respondent no.4 Power Grid Corporation under Section 164 of the Electricity Act by the Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2003.

22. In the instant matter the provisions of the Telegraph Act shall also come into play. Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act are as follows:-

"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 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.

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 this being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (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 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 the same." (emphasis supplied)

23. Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act categorically mandates that 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. In the instant matter also, the HT transmission line is to be laid over the property of the petitioners. Therefore, according to Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act, the right over the land need not be acquired.

24. Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act mandates the telegraph authority to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them. Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act makes provision that in case, any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to the paid under Section 10, clause (d), it shall, may make an application to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

25. A conjoint reading of Section 164 of the Electricity Act and Section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act makes it abundantly clear that in the matter like an instant one, land is not required to be acquired, instead compensation is to be paid. The compensation is determined in accordance with the provision of the Telegraph Act.

26. In the case of Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, Manu/MH/1452/2020, this aspect was interpreted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and in para 23 observed as follows:-

"23. As we have already held that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, it is not necessary to consider the plea that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the RFCTRR Act 2013. Suffice it to say that the entire Telegraph Act, 1885, does not contemplate any acquisition of land. This is clear from the language of Section 10(b) which expressly mandates that 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 line or post. Thus no acquisition of land is contemplated by the Telegraph Act, 1885 and therefore the provisions of RFCTRR Act 2013, which are applicable only to acquisition of land, would clearly not be available, for any user as contemplated under the Telegraph Act, 1885."

27. In the case of Hemlata and Others vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited and Others, Manu/MH/4011/2022 also, the Hon'ble Court discussed this aspect and observed as follows:-

"11. Insofar as the prayer for acquiring the petitioners' land is concerned, such direction cannot be issued especially when the respondent no. 1 has sought to invoke the powers under Section 10(d) of the Act of 1885 for erection of towers to facilitate transmission of its electricity. This position is clear from the law as laid down in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and Vivek Brajendra Singh (supra). We are therefore unable to issue that direction as prayed for."

28. Similarly, acquisition and right of user and need for acquisition of land in such matters have been discussed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jagan Damu Kambri and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Manu/MH/5314/2023 and in para 8 observed as follows:-

"8. We find that both these prayers are wholly misconceived as there is no acquisition of the Petitioners property in the present case. What is acquired is the 'right of user' under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The same cannot be equated with acquiring the property whereby the Petitioners are divested of their ownership rights, and which are then transferred to the acquiring body. This issue is no longer res integra and is covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Union of India and Others [MANU/MH/1452/2020 : 2021 (5) Mh. L. J. 144]. In this case also, a specific argument was made on behalf of the Petitioners that it was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act for the 'cost of land' due to erection of the transmission tower. This argument was expressly negated by this Court by inter alia holding that under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 there is no acquisition of the land whatsoever. The Division Bench opined that the entire Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 does not contemplate any acquisition of land and this is clear from the language of Section 10(b) which expressly mandates that 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 line or post. The Division Bench therefore opined that the provisions of the 2013 Act, and which are applicable only to acquisition of land, would clearly not be available for any user as contemplated under the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885............................................................................. ............................................................................................................."

29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, in fact, in the instant matter, the provisions of 2013 Act, do not 16 come into play. The land of the petitioners need not be acquired for laying HT transmission line as has been mandated under Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act. In such matters, full compensation is to be paid under Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act and if it is disputed, it is determined on an application filed by either of the parties, by the concerned District Judge under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act.

30. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the NOC from the land owners ought to have been taken before laying the HT transmission line; notices should have been given to the petitioners or public nearby for survey; since, the HT transmission line is proposed due to Haridwar Ring Road, therefore, in view of the National Highways Act, 1956, 30 days notice was required to be given to the public inviting comments and seeking claims and objections; the State Government ought to have been consulted with respect to ROW for eliminating or reducing risk of personal injuries or damage.

31. In the instant case, the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation has been conferred powers under the Telegraph Act by virtue of notification dated 24.12.2003 under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. The HT transmission line is being laid accordingly. The provisions of Telegraph Act, does not stipulate giving such notices as has been contended on behalf of the petitioners. It is also not the case of acquisition of any land by NHAI, therefore, there is no question of issuing notice under the National Highways Act, 1956, before proposing the HT transmission line. It has also not been indicated by the petitioners as to why is it imperative for the respondents to consult the State Government with respect of ROW for eliminating or reducing the risk of injuries or damages. Therefore, there is no force in these arguments, as advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 17

32. It is also the case of the petitioners that notices were required to be given to them before laying the HT transmission line. Reference has been made to the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 ("the 2006 Rules"). This argument has less merit for acceptance. In the case of Century Textiles (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the similar circumstances held that in view of the provision of 164 of the Electricity Act, the 2006 Rules are not applicable.

33. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, the CEA Regulations, 2023 have not been complied with. Reference has been made to Regulation 63, which reads as follows:-

63. Clearances from buildings of lines of voltage exceeding 650 V.- (1) An overhead line shall not cross over an existing building as far as possible and no building shall be constructed under an existing overhead line.

(2) Where an overhead line of voltage exceeding 650 V passes above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line, of not less than .............................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................."

34. Referring to Regulation 63 of the CEA Regulations, 2023, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an overhead line shall not cross over an existing building "as far as possible". Referring the words "as far as possible", it is argued that to avoid an existing building, a survey needs to be conducted and feasibility is to be examined based on various options. Learned counsel has also referred to principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Century Textiles (supra), wherein in para 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "it is also explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where 18 minimum extent of land gets utilised for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds, etc. while laying down these transmission lines. It is only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on the private lands to the minimum and least extent possible."

35. Referring to the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Century Textiles (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in order to avoid buildings while laying down these HT transmission lines options need to be examined, feasibility is to be considered and only when it becomes inevitable, such transmission lines may be laid over building etc. It is argued that in the instant matter, no such survey was ever done. Feasibility has not been examined.

36. Learned counsel has referred to the answers provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the RTI Act") to the petitioners by the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation, which is Annexure 1 to the amendment application filed by the petitioner. It is argued that, in fact, the respondent no.4, in answer to Question b(iii) and b(iv) has admitted that no alternate route was proposed.

37. In order to appreciate this part of argument, it would be apt to reproduce the answers, which the petitioners received under the RTI Act from the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation, which is hereunder:-

Point Information sought Information provided No. b (iii) Did the department proposed any Department did not alternate route to the sanctioned propose any alternative ROW (map)/ if Yes, please provide all route.


                       the alternate ROW (map)

             b(iv)     Whether   department    is   liable   to   Based       on     survey

                       propose   alternate    routes   before     Techno-commercially

                       sanctioning? If no, kindly provide         viable optimal route is

                       such rules.                                selected.

38. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents have not come up with any case to say that how the proposed HT transmission line is the only feasible line; the aspect of avoiding building etc. has not been examined.

39. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that after due survey the proposed HT transmission line is being laid. In its counter affidavit, the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation in para 23 has categorically stated that a joint route survey was meticulously conducted and based on the survey, a techno commercially viable and optimal route was selected. In fact, when amendment was made in the petition, the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation filed a supplementary counter affidavit and in para 2 of it also, it is stated that the survey was conducted and the most techno commercially viable optimal route was found by the experts/engineers, which is the present route.

40. It is true that as per CEA Regulations, 2023 as far as possible, an overhead line shall not cross over any existing building.

The words used are "as far as possible". It is also true that in the case of 20 Century Textiles (supra), in para 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is only when, it become inevitable that towers are placed on the private lands to minimum and least extent possible.

41. This Court cannot examine the aspect of survey in laying HT transmission line. On behalf of the petitioners, what is being argued is that the aspect of avoiding building etc. has not been examined by the respondents. It is denied in their pleadings by the respondents and what is stated is that a survey was conducted and the most techno commercially viable optimal route has been selected, which is the present route. There is no material which may doubt these versions of the respondents. In fact, it is not a question of raising a construction over a plot. It is laying a transmission line for which various factors are to be taken into consideration, including, avoiding the buildings, avoiding loss of electricity etc.

42. On behalf of the petitioners, reference has been made to the response given by the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation with regard to the routes. The questions and answers under the RTI Act has already been quoted hereinbefore. The information b(iii) was with regard to the question as to whether the department proposed an alternate route to the sanctioned ROW. The answer is in negative. It is not a question of proposing any alternate route. It is categorically stated by the respondents that after a survey, the present route was found to be most techno commercially viable optimal route. If one route is found viable and accurate, there is no need to propose any alternate route. Therefore, answer to this RTI query does not even remotely suggests that survey was in any manner deficient.

43. Insofar as, answer to query b(iv) by the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation is concerned, it also does not support the case of the petitioners. The question was as to whether the department is liable to propose alternate routes before sanctioning? And the answer is "based on survey techno commercially viable optimal route is selected." It also does not mean that the survey was not done as per CEA Regulations 2023. The argument that has been advanced on this aspect on behalf of the petitioners also lacks merit.

44. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have constitutional right to property. They cannot be divested of their rights by any statutory provision.

45. This Court has already held that in view of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation has been conferred the authority of the Telegraph Act by a notification dated 24.12.2003. Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act make provisions for compensation in this regard. The interest of affected persons are safeguarded. It is not violative of any right of the petitioners. Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act are still in statute Book. They have not been declared ultra vires of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that in any manner, any Constitutional right of the petitioners is being infringed by laying the HT transmission line.

46. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submitted that the HT transmission line is yet to be laid over the property of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners request removal or alteration of the electricity line under Section 17 of the Electricity Act. 22

47. In response to it, on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that Section 17 of the Electricity Act, would come into play only when the transmission line is already laid. It does not give any right to the petitioners to seek alteration or removal of the HT transmission line.

48. Referring to Sections 11 and 16 (2) of the Telegraph Act, it is argued that no one can obstruct laying of such HT transmission line. Section 11 and Section 16 (2) and Section 17 of the Telegraph Act are as follows:-

"11. Power to enter on property in order to repair or remove telegraph lines or posts.-The telegraph authority may, at any time, for the purpose of examining, repairing, altering or removing any telegraph line or post, enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the line or post has been placed.

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)............................................................................

(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 (45 of 1860).

17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on property other than that of a local authority.- (1)When, under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or post has been placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property (sic property) vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered 23 in from, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly:

Provided that, if compensation has been paid under Section 10, clause (d), he shall, when making the requisition, tender to the telegraph authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum.

(2) If the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to order the removal or alteration.

(3) A District Magistrate receiving an application under sub-

section (2) may, in his discretion, reject the same or make an order, absolutely or subject to conditions, for the removal of the telegraph line or post to any other part of the property or to a higher or lower level or for the alteration of its form; and the order so made shall be final."

49. A bare reading of the above provisions make it clear that according to Section 11 of the Telegraph Act, the telegraph authority has right to enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the line or post has been placed. Section 16 Sub Clause (2) makes it abundantly clear that any obstruction in this matter by any person may attract the provisions of the Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

50. Insofar as, the removal or alteration of the HT transmission line under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act is concerned, the opening lines of Section 17 of the Telegraph Act makes it clear that this option may be exercised only once the transmission line has been placed; a person on whose land such transmission line is laid may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line accordingly; if telegraph authority omits to comply the request, the aggrieved person 24 may apply to the District Magistrate, who takes a decision under Section 17 (3) of the Telegraph Act.

51. Section 17 of the Telegraph Act will come into play only when the HT transmission line is laid. In the instant matter, it is yet to be laid. Therefore, at this stage, the provisions of Section 17 of the Telegraph Act are not attracted.

52. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions, Accordingly, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

53. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 02.07.2025 Jitendra

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court