Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The writ petitioners challenged the impugned order on the ground that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to decide the route for installation of the transmission lines and that the District Collector, before deciding on an alternative route, has not taken note of the technical recommendations of the experts on the field. According to them, the impugned order directing installation of the transmission towers through their lands was passed in view of the fact that some other land owners who were affected by the original route had filed a batch of writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos.9728, 5205, 5206, 5207, 5208, 5209 and 4900 of 2010. The said batch of writ petitions was disposed of on 30.4.2010 with a direction to the Board officials to proceed with the work after getting appropriate orders from the District Collector-cum-Magistrate, Tiruppur under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. A direction was also issued to the District Collector-cum-Magistrate to pass appropriate orders within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the District Collector, Tiruppur instructed the TNEB officials to study the pros and cons of the alternate route, and it was on the instructions of the District Collector, Tiruppur the officials of the Board surveyed both possible routes and submitted a report inter se with their merits and demerits. In their report, considering the technical aspects, they approved the original route as being more feasible with fewer objections, since it was along side with the existing Panchayat Road. Thereafter, the District Collector conducted a meeting with the land owners as well as the Board Engineers and orally declared that the original route would be followed. However, before passing the orders in writing, he was transferred and his successor in office viz., the present District Collector, conducted a second meeting with the land owners and issued the impugned order to proceed with the work on the second proposed route, instead of the original route.

8. Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A. No.1051 of 2012 submitted that it was incorrect to say that the decision with regard to laying of the transmission lines under the statute vested only with the Board, and the District Collector was well within his authority to modify, change or alter one or other routes as proposed by the Board, under Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act and even under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Collector has every power to implement the decisions taken under Section 10 of the said Act. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the learned single Judge, having observed that the District Collector has got the power to remove or alter the telegraph lines or posts after their installation under Section 17 of the Act, ought not have allowed the writ petitions on the ground that he has no power to change or alter the route or line for installation of the transmission towers, especially when power is specifically conferred upon the Collector under Section 17 of the Act to remove or alter the telegraph lines. Learned Senior Counsel, by drawing our attention to the averments made by the Board in its counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, emphasized the fact that after studying the feasibility of an alternative route, they suggested two possible routes with their merits and demerits. Based on the Boards recommendation, the District Collector organised a public hearing, in which the writ petitioners had participated. Even when the Collector concerned was transferred, the incumbent again conducted a meeting with the land owners in the presence of the Board officials and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 18.7.2011 to proceed with the work in the second alternative route proposed by the Board, taking into consideration the technical feasibilities and other revenue aspects. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge that the impugned order was without jurisdiction, arbitrary and a result of non-application of mind on the part of the District Collector is wholly misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on (2009) 16 S.C.C. 743 (supra) in this regard.

9. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of two of the respondents-writ petitioners, while reiterating the case of these respondents-writ petitioners, placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of C. Ram Prakash vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., reported in 2011 (4) L.W. 924 in support of his case. He strongly relied upon paragraphs 21 to 25 of the said judgment.

10. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the land owners-writ petitioners submitted that the scheme pertained to the year 2009 and there were no changed circumstances for changing the alignment earlier agreed upon. He drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board before the learned single Judge, as also before us, wherein it is specifically stated that pursuant to the order of the High Court in an earlier writ petition, the Board officials approached the District Collector to give permission for studying the feasibility of alternative routes. After due survey, they narrowed in on two possible routes and suggested the same with the merits and demerits of both these routes. The Board submitted its report, however, with an observation that the route originally approved by the Board was more feasible and ought to be taken as it was along the existing panchayat road. In furtherance to the aforesaid report, the District Collector in his public hearing meeting had orally declared that the Boards originally approved route would only be followed. However, upon his transfer, the incoming Collector again called for a meeting, but this time it was ordered that the second alternative route and not the original route would be followed, citing technical feasibilities and other revenue aspects, which resulted in the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel laid elaborate emphasis on the subsequent change of stance on the part of the District Collector in following the second route, when all along the Board had reported and even the erstwhile Collector had declared that the earlier route was going to be followed. He submitted that the impugned order, therefore, clearly suffers from mala fides and ought to have been struck down, which was rightly done by the learned single Judge. Learned Senior Counsel took umbrage under paragraph 34 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (2009) 16 S.C.C. 743 (supra), where the District Collector granted indulgence to the appellant-company therein for the limited request made on its behalf that the route of the power line be diverted a little in its very lands instead of passing right through the middle, which would cause extensive damage to its poultry farm and accordingly directed the Power Grid Corporation to realign the transmission lines in such a way that they did not pass directly above the poultry sheds of the appellant-company. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that such an indulgence could also have been granted in respect of the lands belonging to the respondents-writ petitioners before installing the transmission lines. Learned Senior Counsel contended that under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the District Collector shall exercise his power only when there is any resistance or obstruction to the exercise of powers of the telegraph authority under Section 10 of the Act or in case of any interference caused by any interested person in the telegraph lines or posts so erected on his/her lands, as contemplated in Section 17 of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, the District Collector has no say whatsoever in deciding which route ought to be followed and/or recommend any change in the transmission lines, and it is the job solely within the domain of the Board.

18. We have perused the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Construction, Salem, and the facts stated therein have not been controverted by the appellants. It is seen that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board proposed to erect a new 400 KV Double Circuit line from the newly constructed 600 MW capacity at Mettur Thermal Power Station Stage-III to Arasur 400 Sub Station to evacuate the electric Power supply, which is to be generated from MTPS Stage-III. The scheme was approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu by Notification dated 02.10.2009, and there was no objection to such Notification. The entire route length of 110 Km with 324 Nos. supporting towers and the work commenced during January, 2010 and was scheduled to be completed by October 2011. It has been further stated that all the works are completed except for nine towers between AP 171/0 to AP 174/0, which are proposed in Nambiyampalayam and Sundakkampalayam areas near Avinashi. At that stage, the work was delayed due to objections raised by certain land owners. About seven land owners filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P.Nos. 9728 of 2010 ect. Batch, which was disposed of giving certain directions. In the earlier part of this order, we have extracted the directions issued in those cases. By virtue of the said directions, the Electricity Board was directed to proceed with the work after obtaining appropriate orders of the District Collector/Magistrate under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and the District Collector was directed to pass appropriate orders within fifteen days. In terms of the directions, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board requested permission from the District Collector, Tiruppur, to enter upon the land to enable them to proceed with the work. The District Collector issued directions to the officials of the Electricity Board to study the feasibility of an alternate route and survey was also conducted, pursuant to which a proposal was submitted in respect of two possible routes with merits and demerits of both the routes. The Electricity Board took a definite stand that considering the technical aspects, the original route which was approved by the Board was more feasible as the route was to be taken along the existing Panchayat road. Thereafter, meeting was convened between 17.5.2011 and 19.5.2011 and the land owners as well as the officials of the Electricity Board participated in the discussion and it is stated that it was orally agreed that the original route will be adopted. However, in the meantime, the said District Collector was transferred and another officer was posted in his place, who is said to have conducted meetings with the land owners and the Engineers of the Board on 04.07.2011 and 05.07.2011 and he has passed an order on 18.7.2011 to proceed with the work in the second alternate route instead of the original route which was found to be more feasible by the Board as the route was along the existing Panchayat road. When the Electricity Board attempted to implement the order passed by the District Collector dated 18.07.2011, objection was raised by the land owners. This gave raise to the filing of Writ Petitions which are the subject matter of these Writ Appeals.