High Court of Madhya Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA

    For the Appearing Parties: Shekhar Bhargava, Romesh Dave, Shailendra Mukati, Advocates.

(1.) Regard being had to the homogeneous character of the controversy involved in the present
cases,, writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being decided by this
Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 6412/2010 are narrated hereunder.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of
respondent [No. 1 in construction of a tower for transmission of electrical energy through 400 KV
High Tension Transmission Lines. The petitioner has stated before this Court that he is the owner of
agricultural land bearing Survey No. 434/1, 434/2 and 434/3 ad-measuring area 3.84 acres situated
in Village Panod Tehsil lndore. The petitioner has further stated that the land in question was
purchased by the petitioner on 16-5-2008 through a registered sale-deed and he is the Bhumi-Swami
of the land in question. The petitioner has further stated that he was informed by one of his
associate companies namely Kalyan India Infrastructures Private Limited that the Power Grid
Corporation of India is proposing to erect a tower for putting up a High Tension Lines of 400 KV over
the land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioners further grievance is that in case, respondent No.
1 is permitted to erect a tower and to carry on the construction of laying High Tension Lines over the
land of the petitioner, a large number of area of the land belonging to the petitioner would become
unusable, as the petitioner under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984, would
be required to leave unused area as an open space, to a stretch of 15 meters on the either side from
the centre line of the proposed overhead transmission lines. The petitioner has also stated before
this Court that an alternative land is available, which is Government land and the same can be used
for construction of transmission tower and for laying transmission lines. The petitioner has further
stated that an objection was raised on 29-1-2010. However, instead of granting any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, a notice was issued on 15-3-2010 under the provisions of sections 68 and
164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 read with provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,
informing the petitioner that transmission line is being laid over the land reflected in the notice and
in case, he is aggrieved, he is free to stake his claim for grant of compensation. The petitioner has
further stated that a notice was received by the petitioner served by respondent No. 1 through its
counsel, informing the petitioner that a caveat is being filed in the matter. The petitioners grievance
is that without obtaining his consent, a transmission tower is being constructed by the Power Grid
Corporation of India over the land belonging to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and it has been stated that notice
dated 15-3-2010 issued under sections 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is totally without
jurisdiction and there is a distinction between the electrical lines and the transmission lines. It has
been vehemently argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that section 68 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is not applicable in the present case, as the aforesaid section deals with
installation of overhead lines (electric lines) while transmission lines are defined under section 2 (72)
of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the same excludes electric lines since they are high pressure cables
for transmission very high electricity from one generation station to another generation station or to
a Sub Station.
(4.) The petitioner has also raised another ground before this Court and the contention of the
learned senior counsel is that keeping in view the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, consent
of the petitioner is required and without acquiring the land and without obtaining consent from the
petitioner, no such construction can take place, especially keeping in view the provisions of Work of
Licensee Rules, 2006. The petitioner has also stated that the respondents, in spite of receiving a
notice from the petitioner, have not decided the objections raised by the petitioner and have
threatened the petitioner that they shall be using police force against the petitioner, in case
respondent No. 1 is obstructed, in the matter of construction of transmission tower. It has also been
argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner at any point of time, and
therefore, action of respondent No. 1 is bad in law and is also) violative of principles of natural
justice and fair play.

(5.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of notice dated 15-3-2010 (Annexure P/5) issued by
respondent No. 1, Power Grid Corporation of India and has also prayed for issuance of appropriate
writ, direction or order, restraining respondent No. 1 from laying transmission line across the land of
the petitioner or from erecting transmission tower over the land belonging to the petitioner. It has
also been prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to use the adjoining government land.

(6.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered in the
case of M.D., M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry Private Limited vs. R. Chellappan and others, reported in
2009 (7) SCALE 157. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of Bharat Plywood and
Timber Products Private Limited vs. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum and others, reported in
AIR 1972 Kerala 47. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon a judgment delivered in case of
Chairman, lndore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Limited and others,
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 705.

(7.) A rejoinder has also been filed in the matter and it has been stated in the rejoinder that
respondent No. 1 has not been able to establish that they are carrying out the work of laying
transmission line, as per sanctioned scheme and if there is no sanctioned scheme, the impugned
action is without any legal authority, hence liable to be quashed by this Court. It has also been
alleged that no survey of any kind took place in the matter and the maps, enclosed along with the
return, are of no value. The petitioner in his rejoinder has reiterated that consent of the petitioner
was not sought and the property belonging to the petitioner cannot be taken away, without
ffollowing the prescribed procedure and the respondents could not have ignored the provisions of
Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(8.) A detailed and exhaustive return has been filed on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India and
the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the Power Grid Corporation of India is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a Government of India Undertaking and the
Central Government is having 86.36% shares of the company and rest of the shares are held by
mutual funds, financial institution and nationalized insurance companies. It has also been stated in
the return that the Power Grid Corporation of India was specified as a Central Transmission Utility of
this country under the Electricity Act, 1910 and it is notified in the Government of India Gazette vide
notification dated 24-12-2003 and the main function of the Power Grid Corporation of India is
development of an integrated and efficient power transmission system network in the country.
Respondent No. 1 has stated before this Court that the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are
made applicable by virtue of section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and, no consent off any
kind is required while constructing a tower or while laying transmission lines. The respondents have
enclosed a notification dated 24-12-2003 issued toy the Government of India, Ministry of Power,
wherein respondent No. 1 has been authorized to exercise all powers vested in the Telegraph
Authority under Part-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It has been stated in the return that no
permission of the District Magistrate is required, keeping in view provisions of Electricity Act, 2003
read with provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, at any point of time, while constructing a tower
or laying transmission lines. It has also been stated that exhaustive survey was done in the matter
and a Beeline, which is the straight line joining two terminal points and two alternative lines where
the work has to be actually carried out, were also drawn by the department while surveying and
finalizing the transmission route. It has been categorically stated before this Court that in respect of
both the alternative routes, the petitioners land is coining in way of the transmission lines. The
respondent No. 1 has further stated that various guidelines framed from time to time were followed
and the Beeline was kept in mind, while finalizing transmission lines. It has also been stated that the
entire cost of the project is approximately Rs.7,031.88/- crores and at the time the present writ
petition was filed, almost 60% of the project was completed and the laying of transmission line is
going ahead with full swing. However, in respect of the land in question, as interim order was;
passed by this Court, the work has come to standstill. The respondent No. 1 has further stated that
the map sanctioned for laying transmission line was; finalized and scheme was forwarded to the
Government of India and the Government of India as provided under section 68(1) of the Electricity
Act, 2003 has accorded approval on 25th October, 2007. The approval granted by the Government
of India includes transmission lines, which is the subject-matter of the present writ petition i.e.
lndore (Power Grid) lndore (MPPTCL) 400 KV D/C Line. It has been further stated that the
Government of India has again granted approval under section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide
letter dated 2-9-2008, meaning thereby the scheme has been sanctioned by the Government of
India and it is a time bound project. Respondent No. 1 has enclosed approvals recorded by the
Government of India from time to time and the aforesaid approvals reflect that the work in question
has to be started within three years from the date of approval, meaning thereby that it is a time
bound project. Respondents have categorically stated in the return that 60% work is already over,
therefore, question of changing the route alignment afresh, is not possible and the same shall result
in heavy loss to the State Exchequer. The respondents have categorically stated that they are not
acquiring the land of the petitioner and they have also denied that 300 sq. ft. of land will become
unusable. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner shall be free to use the land in question
and in case, he is aggrieved in the matter of grant of compensation, he shall always be free to take
appropriate steps in accordance with law by claiming compensation or for enhancement of
compensation. However, his consent is not required under any statutory provisions of law.

(9.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India has relied upon a
judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Manojbhai Dasrathbhai Patel and
another vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and others Special Civil Application No.
2813/2010 decided on 30-3-2010. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered by Gujarat High
Court in the case of Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel and another vs. State of Gujarat and another,
reported in AIR 2007 Gujarat 32. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered by
Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust and others vs. Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited and others, reported in AIR 2008 Jharkhand 34. Reliance has also been
placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajak and others vs. National
Thermal Power Corporation Limited, lndore and another, reported in AIR 1988 M. P. 172. Learned
counsel has lastly relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of G.V.S. Rama Krishna s/o
Neqeshwar Rao and others vs. A.P. Transco represented by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha
and others, reported in AIR 2009 A. P. 158 and his contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid
judgments, the question of obtaining consent from the petitioner for construction of transmission
tower and for laying transmission lines over the land belonging to the petitioner, does not arise and
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(10.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

(11.) The matter is being heard and decided with the consent of the parties, at admission stage itself.

(12.) In the present case, the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.
434/1, 434/2 and 434/3 ad-measuring 3.84 acres situated in Village Panod, Tehsil and. District
lndore. A notice was issued by respondent No. 1-Power Grid Corporation of India under the
provisions of sections 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as
well as The Electricity Rules, 2005. The petitioners grievance is that the land belonging to the
petitioner, which is the private land, respondent No. 1, Power Grid Corporation of India, is
constructing a transmission tower and laying transmission lines over the land belonging to the
petitioner, which is his private property and no consent has been obtained from the petitioner, while
proceeding- ahead in the matter. The notice issued by respondent No. 1 reflects that the same has
been issued under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003
reads, as under :-

"164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.- The Appropriate Government may,
by order in writing, for 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."

Section 2 (20) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines "electric line" and the same read, as under:-

"(20) "electric line" means any line which is used for carrying electricity for any purpose and includes
- (a) any support for any such line, that: is to say, any structure, tower, pole or other thing in, on, by
or from which any such line is, or may be. supported, carried or suspended; and (b) any apparatus
connected to any such line for the purpose of carrying electricity."

(13.) The notice further reflects that the aforesaid section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, empowers
the "Appropriate Government" to permit any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in
the business of supplying electricity etc. to exercise powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In
the present case, "appropriate Government" i.e. the Government of India has issued a notification,
as contained in Annexure R/2--C dated 24th December, 2003. by which Power Grid Corporation of
India has been authorized to exercise all powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under Para 3 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads, as under :-

"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 immoveable 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 off
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."

(14.) In the present case, for laying transmission lines, approval of Government of India, as required
under section 68 of the Electricity Act. 2003 was granted on 25th October, 2007 and an 2nd
September, 2008. The aforesaid documents clearly establishes that respondent No. 1 is carrying out
construction of transmission tower and is laying transmission lines, as per the approval granted by
the Government of India under section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner has vehemently
argued before this Court that he has not been heard in the matter and no consent has been
obtained, at any point of time and has also argued before this Court that the provisions of Rule 3 of
the Work of Licensee Rules, 2006 has not been complied with. Relevant statutory provision i.e. Work
of Licensee Rules, 2006 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, thorough, or against any building, or on, over or under any
land whereon, where-over or where-under 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; (b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of
securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed,
may alter such support; Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land
raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain
permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner off Police or any other officer
authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works: Provided further that
if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried
out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the
District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorized may by order) in writing
direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered. (2) When making of an
order under sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so
authorized, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned
persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his
opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. (3) Every order made by a District
Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorized officer under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to
revision by the Appropriate Cormmission. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the powers
conferred upon any licensee under section 164 of the Act."

(15.) Keeping in view the provisions of section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with section 10 of
the Telegraph Act, 1885, the question of consent of any kind for erecting poles and transmission
lines on a private land is certainly not required. The Andhra Pradesh (High Court in the case of G.V.S.
Rama Krishna (supra) in paragraphs No. 33, 34 and 35 has held, as under :-

"33. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read
with section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the AP Transco
to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric polls for the transmission of electricity on
or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner / occupier to claim compensation if any
damage is sustained by him by reason of placing of such electric supply lines. In other words, neither
the acquisition of the lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the owner or occupier.
34. It is also relevant to note that since section 28 or 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 are not
saved under section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is no need to [publish a sanctioned
scheme nor it is necessary to give any notice by publication in local news papers as required under
section 29 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In spite of the same, the notification dated 14-7-
2008 was published in the A.P. Gazette as well as two local dailies inviting objections from the
interested / aggrieved persons and no objections were received from anyone. 35. In the
circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal on
contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 on any ground whatsoever. Hence, no
Mandamus can be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding with the erection of poles
and transmission lines through the lands of the petitioners. However, this shall not preclude the
petitioners to claim the compensation by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law
in case any damage is sustained to their property."

(16.) A similar view was taken earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajak (supra)
and it was held that the only remedy of a person owing the fields where lines are laid for
transmission of electricity, is to seek compensation. Paragraphs No. 12 and 15 of the aforesaid
judgment reads, as under:-
"12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the provisions referred
to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the alteration in respect of the sanctioned scheme which
has been concurred in by the Authority, by way of introducing the non obstante clause therein, as
published, in the notification (Annexure R-IV), is minor in character, which could be made without
preparing a supplementary scheme, as is contemplated in the first proviso to section 32 of the Act,
as reproduced here in above. In our view, therefore, the published sanctioned scheme as per
notification (Annexure R-IV) is valid and operative and there can be no legal bar to its
implementation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners raising objection to the
validity of the sanctioned scheme as published in the notification (Annexure R-IV) cannot be upheld
and is hereby rejected. 15. In view of the power vested in the Generating Company NTPC under
section 42 of the Act read with Part-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act, there can be no valid objection by
the petitioners to the implementation of the sanctioned scheme either on the principles of natural
justice or on the ground of unauthorized user of petitioners land in respect of which compensation
has been provided for under proviso (d) to section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act".

Jharkhand High Court in the case of.Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust (supra) in paragraph No. 8 has held,
as under :- "8. In view of scheme of the Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Electricity
Act, 2003, the Rules of 2006 and section 10 of the Telegraph Act; and the notification dated 24-12-
2003, it is clear that prior consent from the petitioners was/is not required."

(17.) On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that no such consent, as claimed by the
petitioner, is required, keeping in view section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with
section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the case of Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel (supra) again it
has been held that no such consent at any point of time is required under the provisions of
Electricity Act, 2003 read with Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Gujarat High Court while deciding the
case of Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel (supra) in paragraph Nos.3, 20, 21 and 25 has held, as under :-

"3. The petitioners have approached this Court through a common Power of Attorney holder. It is
stated in para 1 of the petition that- "The petitioners by this petition challenge notice dated 2-5-
2006 (copy at Annexure A hereto) (hereinafter referred to as the impugned notice) for laying
overhead electric supply lines, upon Shri Jagdishbhai Ramanbhai Patel who is the nephew of the
petitioner No. 1 and who handles the affairs of the petitioners on their behalf as the petitioners are
residing abroad."

This fact is mentioned as the Court is of the opinion that this litigation is a luxury litigation and is
motivated to bring pressure on the respondents to come to same terms by creating hurdle in laying
down 220 KV overhead line from the point of generation of electricity to the point of distribution
from where number of consumers in the licensed area of respondent No. 2 company are to be
supplied the electricity. 20. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that section 51 of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 confers powers of telegraph authority on a licensee. The learned
advocate submitted that, that being so, it is within the powers of the State Government to confer
powers of the telegraph authority for placing of electric supply lines, appliance and apparatus for the
transmission of energy or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for
the proper coordination of works by order in writing. Not only on a licensee but even on any public
officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under
this Act. He submitted that it is true that it is open to the State Government to impose such
conditions and restrictions which it may think fit to impose. The learned advocate submitted that the
State Government can confer any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that
Act with respect to 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. He submitted that section
51 expands the powers of the licensee at par with the powers which the telegraph authority
possesses under: the Telegraph Act with respect of 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. The learned advocate submitted that the Honble High Court of Kerala in the matter of
Nagaraju vs. Mahalingappa, was pleased to hold that, it is open to the Kerala Electricity Board to
enter upon the lands of private citizens for the purpose of placing of electric supply lines, appliances
and apparatus for transmission of energy without consent of the owners of such lands (Emphasis
supplied). The learned advocate submitted that section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was
with regard to overhead lines, and the restrictions / limitations, if any of this section stood removed
by section 51, as it starts with non obstante" clause. Section 51 reads as under :

"Notwithstanding anything in sections 12 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 and 19, the State
Government may, by order in writing 21. The learned advocate submitted that "sections 12 to 16
relate to works, section 18 deals with overhead lines and section 19 deals with compensation for
damage. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 submitted that in new Act (Electricity Act, 2003)
section 164 provides for exercise of power of telegraphic authority in certain cases. The learned
advocate submitted that section 164 is equivalent to section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
The learned advocate submitted that section 67 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. Section 68 of the new Act is more or less akin to section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act,
1910. He submitted that the net effect of all these provisions is that respondent No. 2 has all the
powers that of the telegraph authority, conferred on it under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section
10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain
telegraph lines and posts. These powers are conferred by the State Government on respondent No.
2 under section 51 of the old Act, which is equivalent to section 164 of the new Act. The learned
advocate for respondent No. 2 made available a copy of the order dated 8th April. 1968 bearing No.
GU-28-ESA-3267/2232/K. By this order, the licence granted to the Surat Electricity Company Limited,
was revoked with effect from 12th April, 1968. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 also made
available a copy of the Notification dated 8th April 1968 bearing No. GU-29-LSX-3267/2232-K,
relevant part of which reads as under:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act,,
1910 (IX-of 1910) hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") the Government of Gujarat, after
consulting the State of Gujarat, after consulting the State Electricity Board and with the consent of
Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat District Panchayat and other Local Authorities as shown in the
statement attached hereto, hereby grants sanction to the Surat Electricity Company Ltd...."
25. This Court finds that the present are the petitions filed with an oblique motive and for
extraneous considerations. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds that the petitions
have no substance and the same are dismissed. Notice is discharged. The Court restrains itself from
passing an order of dismissing the petition with cost only because it is not on record that f;he
petitioners were aware of the act/s of the enthusiastic Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioners.
Though under the law a person who is giving Power of Attorney is responsible for all the acts of the
Power of Attorney Holder, done by him on behalf of the person, who gave him the Power of
Attorney, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that let the petitioners be not burdened with costs."

(18.) A similar view has been taken by Gujarat High Court again in the case of Manojbhai Dasrathbhai
Patel (supra). Thus, time and again, various High Courts has held that no such consent is required for
laying transmission lines and for erecting a tower. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
heavy reliance on a judgment delivered in the case of Chairman, lndore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra)
and it has been vehemently argued that the right to property is not only a constitutional right, but is
also a human right. In the present case, this Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment
and there is no manner of doubt that right to property is not only a constitutional right, but also a
human right, but the fact remains that it is not a fundamental right and the respondents have
initiated action in the matter, keeping in view the various other statutory provisions i.e. the
Electricity Act, 2003/Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as Work of Licensee Rules, 2006 and
therefore, once the respondents have taken an action, as per the prescribed procedure under
various statutes and statutes do not provide for consent in the matter of laying transmission lines,
the question of obtaining petitioners consent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
does not arise. Heavy reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Full Bench of Kerala High
Court reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 47 and it has been argued that the Competent Authority is under
an obligation to issue a prior notice to the owner of the property over which the electric supply line
is proposed before exercising powers under section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. This Court has
carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and this Court is of the considered opinion that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as the respondents have issued a notice under
the Electricity Act, 2003 read with provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and also keeping in view
the subsequent judgments delivered by various High Courts and also keeping in view the Division
Bench judgment of our own High Court, no such notice is required in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. The petitioner, at the best, is entitled to claim compensation and for the
same mechanism is also provided under section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

(19.) In the present case, the petitioner is literary praying for shifting of the transmission line from
his land to some other land, which means it will result in change of entire alignment. The cost of the
project is Rs. 7,031.88/- crores and transmission lines are laid by Power Grid Corporation of India in
larger public interest, and therefore, right of an individual some times has got to give way to the
right of public at large, and therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter.

(20.) Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed
with a liberty to the petitioner to claim damages, for which a notice has already been given to the
petitioner by the Power Grid Corporation of India. No order as to costs. C c. as per rules. petition
dissmised.
Vijay Ramchandra Agrawal v. Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd