Bombay High CourtShri Vivek Brajendra Singh vs State Government Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2012Bench:S.A. Bobde,Prasanna B. VaralePandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAPUR
                              WRIT PETITION NO.256 OF 2012




                                                   
               Shri Vivek Brajendra Singh
               Age 35 yrs. Occ: Farmer,
               R/o A-9/390, Forest Colony,




                                                  
               Seminary Hills, Katol Road,
               District - Nagpur                                        .. Petitioner

                     Vs.




                                       
               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                           
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                          
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
               


               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
            



                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.

               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,





                    New Delhi.

               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.





               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents



                                     1/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                                          WITH




                                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 257 OF 2012




                                                   
               Shri Anandrao Narayan Chaudhary
               68 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Ganeshpur, Kelapur, Dist.Yeotmal                     .. Petitioner




                                                  
                            Vs.
               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,




                                       
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                        
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                       
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Yeotmal.
               


               4.  The Union of India, through its 
            



                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.

               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary





                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents





                                     2/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                          WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 258 OF 2012




                                                                            
               Shri Deorao Ganpati Zade




                                                   
               72 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Junewani, Post-Mohagaon Zilpi,
               Tahasil-Hingna, Dist. Napugr                             .. Petitioner




                                                  
                            Vs.
               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.




                                       
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                        
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
                       
               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
               

               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
            



                    New Delhi.

               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.





               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents





                                     3/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                          WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 259 OF 2012




                                                                            
               Shri Anandrao Dashrath Dahake




                                                   
               86 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Brahmanwada, Post-Walni,
               Tahasil and Dist. Nagpur                                 .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.


               1.  State Government of Maharashtra




                                       
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                        
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                       
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
               

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of





                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     4/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                                          WITH




                                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2012




                                                   
               Shri Anandrao Shankarrao Umale
               55 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Junewani, Post-Mohagaon (Zilpi),
               Tahasil-Hingna, Dist. Napur.                             .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra




                                       
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                        
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                       
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
               

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of





                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     5/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                                          WITH




                                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2012




                                                   
               Shri Rajesh Vishwamitra Dua
               53 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Brahmanwada, Post-Walni,
               Tahasil & Dist. Nagpur.                                  .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra




                                       
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                        
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                       
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
               

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of





                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     6/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                          WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2012




                                                                            
                                                   
               Shri Ghanshyam Chindhuji Awachat
               45 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Junewani, Post-Mohagaon Zilpi,
               Tahasil-Hingna, Dist. Nagpur                             .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra




                                       
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                        
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                       
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
               

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of





                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     7/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                                          WITH




                                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2012




                                                   
               Shri Charandas Shankar Mamulkar
               42 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Khandala, Post-Walni,
               Tahasil and Dist. Nagpur                                 .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,




                                       
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                        
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                       
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
               

                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 





                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     8/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                          WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 308 OF 2012




                                                                            
               Shri Madho Ramchandra Bhange




                                                   
               65 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Khandala, Post - Walni,
               Tahasil and Dist. Nagpur.                                .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,




                                       
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                        
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                       
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
               

                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 





                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     9/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                                          WITH




                                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 309 OF 2012




                                                   
               Shri Laxman Dasru Bhandekar
               86 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Kanholibra, Tahasil-Hingna,
               District - Nagpur.                                       .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra




                                       
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                        
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                       
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
               

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of





                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     10/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                                          WITH




                                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 533 OF 2012




                                                   
               Smt. Vijaya w/o Suresh Gupta
               Aged about 52 yrs., Occ:Cultivator,
               R/o Itwari Main Road, Umrer, Tahsil -




                                                  
               Umrer, Dist. Nagpur, present R/o
               16/AB Shreejee Residency, Civil Lines,
               Nagpur.                                                  .. Petitioner

                           Vs.




                                       
               1.  ADANI Power Maharashtra Ltd., through
                        
                    its Vice-President (transmission),
                    office at 22, Income Tax Colony, Main Road,
                    Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.
                       
               2.  The State  of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Department Industries,
                    Energy and Labour,
               

                    Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
            



               3.  The  Collector  Nagpur, 
                    Civil Lines, Nagpur.

               4.  Union of India, through its 





                    Secretary, Ministry of Power,
                    Government of India,
                    "Shramshakti Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.

               5.  Union of India, through its Secretary





                    Ministry of Law and Judiciary,
                    4th Floor, A-Wing, "Shashtri Bhawan",
                    New Delhi - 110 001.                                .. Respondents



                                     11/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                               wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                           WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2012




                                                                              
               Shri Rajendra Chhotmalji Chordiya




                                                     
               Aged about 56 years, Occupation: Business,
               R/o Mohta Chowk, Hinganghat,
               Dist. Wardha                                               .. Petitioner




                                                    
                            Vs.

               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 




                                       
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
                        
               2.  District Magistrate/ Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
                       
               3.  Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               4.  State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
               

                    Industries & Energy & Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
            



               5.  The Attorney General of India,
                    Supreme Court, New Delhi.                             ..Respondents





                                          WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2012

               Krishnaji s/o Wamanrao Mehar





               Aged about 40 yrs. Occ:Agriculturist
               R/o Haladgaon, Taq.:Higna, Dist.Nagpur
               Presently at 26, Pioneer Residency Park,
               Somalwada, Wardha Road, Nagpur.                            .. Petitioner


                                     12/86




                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                            Vs.




                                                                            
                                                   
               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.




                                                  
               2.  Ketan Construction Co. Ltd.
                    Through its Branch Manager,
                    C/o House of Manoj Pandurang Dhobale,
                    Shambunath Society, Opp: Zingabai Takli




                                        
                    Gate, Faras Square, Koradi Road,
                   Zingabai Takli, Post: Mankapur,
                         
                   Nagpur, Tq. & District - Nagpur.

               3.  State of Maharashtra, Through its
                        
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour
                    Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
               

               4.  Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Department of Energy,
            



                    New Delhi.

               5.  Attorney General of India, 
                    Office in the Compund of 





                    Supreme Court of India,
                    New Delhi - 110 001.

               6.  Divisional Forest Officer,
                    Near Government Press,





                    Civil Lines, Nagpur.                                .. Respondents




                                      13/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                          WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2012




                                                                            
                                                   
               Shri Narendra Bhaiyyaji Asre
               54 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Nikalas Mandir Road, Itwari,
               Nagpur.                                                  .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,




                                       
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                        
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                       
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
               

                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 





                    New Delhi - 11.                                     .. Respondents




                                     14/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2011




                                                                            
               Shri Hemant S/o Dashrath Nagrale




                                                   
               Aged 38 years, Occupation: Agriculturist
               R/o 21, Ashok Colony, Khamla,
               Nagpur - 25.                                             .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.


               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 




                                       
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
                        
               2.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Nagpur, Civil Lines, District-Nagpur.
                       
               3.  State of Maharashtra, through its
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy &
                    Labour Department, Mantrayala,
               

                    Mumbai - 400 032.
            



               4.  Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Department of Energy,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, Office at Supreme Court Building, 





                    New Delhi.                                          .. Respondents




                                     15/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                              wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3178 OF 2011




                                                                             
                                          AND
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 336 OF 2012




                                                   
                                          AND
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2012
                                          AND
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 452 OF 2012




                                                  
               1. Shri Ashok S/o Shyamsundar Agrawal
                   Age: Major, Occupation: Business,
               2. Shri Madhusudan S/o Shyamsundar Agrawal
                   Age: Major, Occupation: Business,




                                       
               3. Shri Deepak S/o Shyamsundar Agrawal
                   Age: Major, Occupation: Business.
                
                        
                   All Residents of 44, Sundar Sadan,
                   Snehal Nagar, Sewagram Road,
                       
                   Wardha, Tashil & Dist. Wardha          .. Petitioners

                           Vs.

               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
               


                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
            



                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               2.  District Magistrate/Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District - Wardha.





               3.  State of Maharashtra, through its
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy &
                    Labour Department, Mantrayala,
                    Mumbai - 400 032.





               4.  Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Department of Energy,
                    New Delhi.

                                     16/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                              wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




               5.  Union of India, through its Secretary




                                                                             
                    Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.




                                                   
               6.  Attorney General of India, 
                    Office in the Compound of Supreme 
                    Court of India, New Delhi-110 001.                   ..Respondents




                                                  
                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3681 OF 2011
                                          AND
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 338 OF 2012




                                       
               Shri Narhari s/o Gulabrao Kamdi
                        
               Aged about 60 years, Occ:Agriculturist,
               R/o Kamdi Chowk, Ward No.8,
               Deoli, Tah: Deoli, Dist. Wardha.                          .. Petitioner
                       
                           Vs.


               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
               


                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
            



                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               2.  District Magistrate/Collector 





                    Wardha, Tah. & District - Wardha.

               3.  State of Maharashtra, through its
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy &
                    Labour Department, Mantrayala,
                    Mumbai - 400 032.





               4.  Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Department of Energy,
                    New Delhi.

                                     17/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                              wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               5.  Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.




                                                                             
               6.  Attorney General of India, 




                                                    
                    Office in the Compound of Supreme 
                    Court of India, New Delhi-110 001.                   ..Respondents

                                         WITH




                                                   
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3682 OF 2011
                                          AND
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 339 OF 2012

               Mahesh S/o Kesardasji Batra




                                      
               Aged about 42 years,
               Occ: Business, R/o Ramnagar,
                        
               Wardha, Tahsil-Deoli, Dist. Wardha                        .. Petitioner

                           Vs.
                       
               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
               

                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
            



               2.  District Magistrate/Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District - Wardha.

               3.  Union of India, through its Secretary





                    Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               4.  State of Maharashtra, through its
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy &
                    Labour Department, Mantrayala,





                    Mumbai - 400 032.

               5.  Attorney General of India, 
                    Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.                   ..Respondents


                                    18/86




                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                              wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc




                                         WITH




                                                                             
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3699 OF 2011
                                          AND




                                                   
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 337 OF 2012

               Shriganesh Maharaj Devasthan,
               Deol through its President Trustee
               Shri Pritam S/o Kannhaiyalalji Umre,




                                                  
               Aged about 48, Occ: Business,
               R/o Deoli, Tah-Wardha, 
               Dist. -Wardha.                                            ..Petitioner




                                       
                           Vs.
                        
               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                       
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               2.  District Magistrate/Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District - Wardha.
               


               3.  Union of India, through its Secretary
            



                    Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               4.  State of Maharashtra, through its
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy &





                    Labour Department, Mantrayala,
                    Mumbai - 400 032.

               5.  Attorney General of India, 
                    Supreme Court of India, 





                    New Delhi.                                           ..Respondents




                                     19/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5811 OF 2011




                                                                            
                                                   
               Shri Ajay Ghanshyamdas Karva
               42 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Main Road, Hinghanghat,
               Wardha.                                                  .. Petitioner




                                                  
                            Vs.
               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,




                                       
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                        
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                       
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District-Wardha.
               


               4.  The Union of India, through its 
            



                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.

               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary





                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.





               7.  The "Gram-Panchayat" Jam, At and Post
                    Jam, Tahsil-Samudrapur, 
                    Dist. Wardha                                        .. Respondents


                                     20/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5812 OF 2011




                                                                            
                                                   
               Shri Pandurang Haridas Kite
               52 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o At and Post Jam, Tahsil-
               Samudrapur, Dist.-Wardha.                                .. Petitioner




                                                  
                            Vs.
               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,




                                       
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                        
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                       
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District-Wardha.
               


               4.  The Union of India, through its 
            



                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.

               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary





                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 
                    New Delhi - 11.





               7.  The "Gram-Panchayat" Jam, At and Post
                    Jam, Tahsil-Samudrapur, 
                    Dist. Wardha                                        .. Respondents


                                     21/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5813 OF 2011




                                                                            
                                                   
               Shri Rishabhdas Balchand Surana
               77 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o Main Road, Hinghanghat,
               Wardha.                                                  .. Petitioner




                                                  
                           Vs.

               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,




                                       
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
                        
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                       
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
               

                    Wardha, Tah. & District-Wardha.
            



               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.





               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               6.  The Attorney General of India, Govt. of
                    India, 10, Motilal Nehru Marg, 





                    New Delhi - 11.

               7.  The "Gram-Panchayat" Jam, At and Post
                    Jam, Tahsil-Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha                .. Respondents


                                     22/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6093 OF 2011




                                                                            
                                                   
               1.    Shri Krishnagopal Bhimrao Gawande,
                     55 years, Occupation: Farmer
                     R/o At Ubada, Post: Jam,
                     Taluka: Samudrapur, Dist. -Wardha.




                                                  
               2.    Shri Amol Krishnagopal Gawande,
                     aged 28 years, Occ. Farmer, r/o at Ubada,
                     Post Jam, Tq. Samudrapur, Dist.
                     Wardha.                                   .. Petitioners




                                       
                         ig Vs.
               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                       
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
               

                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
            



               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District-Wardha.





               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
                    New Delhi.

               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary





                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.          .. Respondents




                                     23/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6094 OF 2011




                                                                            
               Shri Genesh Umakant Mahakalkar




                                                   
               40 years, Occupation: Farmer
               R/o At and Post Jam, Taluka -Samudrapur,
               Dist. - Wardha.                                          .. Petitioner
                           Vs.




                                                  
               1.  State Government of Maharashtra
                    Through its Secretary, Industries,
                    Energy and Labour Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.




                                       
               2.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                        
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
                       
               3.  The District Magistrate/The Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District-Wardha.
               

               4.  The Union of India, through its 
                    Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Power,
            



                    New Delhi.

               5.  The Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.          .. Respondents





                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6302 OF 2011





               Sharad s/o Radheshyam Saraf,
               Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business,
               R/p Gol Bazar Road, Ingole Chouk,
               Near Shriram Mandir, Wardha.                             ..Petitioner


                                     24/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                            Vs.




                                                                            
               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 




                                                   
                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
               2.  District Magistrate/Collector 
                    Wardha, Tah. & District - Wardha.




                                                  
               3.  Union of India, through its Secretary
                    Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi.

               4.  State of Maharashtra, through its




                                       
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy &
                    Labour Department, Mantrayala,
                        
                    Mumbai - 400 032.

               5.  Attorney General of India, 
                       
                    Supreme Court of India, 
                    New Delhi.                                          ..Respondents

                                         WITH
               

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6317 OF 2011
            



               1.  Smt. Pushpabai @ Kusumbai Dashrath
                    Kamble, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
                    R/o. Mohagaon, Near Butibori, 
                    District - Nagpur.





               2.  Smt. Shakuntalabai Shamrao Dengre,
                    Age: Major, Occ: Agriculturist,
                    R/o Butibori, Dist. Nagpur.                         .. Petitioners





                            Vs.

               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 


                                     25/86




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                                wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.




                                                                               
               2.  District Magistrate/Collector 




                                                      
                    Nagpur, Office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.
               3.  State of Maharashtra, Through its 
                    Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour
                    Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.




                                                     
               4.  Union of India, Through its Secretary,
                    Department of Energy, New Delhi.

               5.  Union of India, Through its




                                       
                    Secretary, Department of Post &
                    Telegraph, New Delhi.
                         ig                                       .. Respondents


                                         WITH
                       
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6395 OF 2011

               1.  Atul S/o Gulabrao Jadhav
                    Aged about 32 years, Occ:Agriculturist,
                
               


               2.  Sau. Mangala W/o Prabhakar Chaudhari,
            



                    Aged about 30 years, Occ:Agriculturist,

                    Both the petitioners are residents of
                    Tukaram Math, Ram Nagar, Wardha,





                    Taluka & Dist. Wardha.                        .. Petitioners

                            Vs.

               1.  Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
                    Company Ltd., Through its Executive Engineer, 





                    EHTV Lines, Construction Division, Vidyut 
                    Bhavan, Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.

               2.  District Magistrate/Collector 

                                     26/86




                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                                  wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                    Wardha, Tah. & District - Wardha.




                                                                                 
               3.  State of Maharashtra, Through its
                    Secretary, Industries & Energy & Labour




                                                        
                    Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai - 400 032.    

               4.  Union of India, Through its Secretary,
                    Department of Energy, New Delhi.




                                                       
               5.  Attorney General of India, 
                    Office in the Compound of 
                    Supreme Court of India, 
                    New Delhi - 110 001                                      ..Respondents




                                          
               Mr. Tushar Mandlekar for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 256 to 263 of 
                         
               2012, 308 & 309, 693 of  2012 & 5811, 5812, 5813, 6093 & 
               6094 of 2011.
                        
               Mr. P. R. Puri for petitioner in W.P. No. 533 of 2012.

               Mr. U. M. Aurangabadkar for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 659/12 and 
               6302/11.
               


               Mr. S. V. Sohoni   for petitioners in  W.P. Nos. 691/12 & 3178, 
            



               3681 and 6395  of 2011.

               Mr. R.P. Joshi with Mrs. M. P. Munshi for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 
               2675. Mrs. M. P. Munshi for petitioners in W.P. No. 6317 of 2011.





               Mr. M. M. Agnihotri for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3682 and 3699 of 
               2011.

               Mrs. B. H. Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents-State in 





               W.P. Nos.256/12, 3681/11 and 3682/11.

               Mr.   N.W.   Sambre,   Govt.   Pleader   for   respondents-State   in   W.P. 
               Nos. 258/12, 259/12, 5812/11, 5813/11, 6093/11, 6094/11.


                                        27/86




                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                            wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               Mr.  D. B. Yengal, AGP for respondents-State in W.P. Nos. 260/12, 
               261/12, 263/12, 308/12, 659/12, 693/12.




                                                                           
               Mr. D. P. Thakre, AGP for respondents-State in W.P. Nos. 257/12, 




                                                  
               262/12, 691/12,  2675/11.

               Mr. T.H. Khan, AGP for respondents-State in W.P. Nos. 3178/11, 
               3699/11, 5811/11.




                                                 
               Mr. P. D. Kothari, AGP for respondents-State in W.P. Nos. 309/12, 
               533/12, 6302/11, 6317/11, 6395/11.

               Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande for respondent no.1 in WP No. 533/12.




                                      
               Mr. S. V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.E. Moharir for 
                        
               MSETCL in W.P. No. 256/12 and W.P. No. 5812/11.
               Mr. K. H. Deshpande, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.E. Moharir for 
                       
               MSETCL in W.P. No. 3178 of 2011.

               Mr. G.E. Moharir for MSETCL in WP Nos. 258 to 263 and 308 
               and 309 of 2012 and WP Nos. 659, 691, 693 of 2012 & WP No.
               

               2675/11,   3681/11,   3682/11,3699/11,5811/11,5813,6093/11, 
               6094/11, 6302/11, 6317/11, 6395/11 
            



               Mr. R.E. Moharir for MSETCL in W.P. No. 257/12.

               Mrs. Gauri Vyankatraman for respondents-Union of India in W.P. 





               2675/11.
               Mr. Anoop Parihar for respondents-Union of India in W.P. Nos. 
               3178, 3681 and 3682 of 2011.
               Mr. S.K. Mishra, Addl. Solicitor General for respondents-Union 
               of India in rest of the matters.





               Mr. V.A. Bagaddeo for respondent no. 7 - Gram-Panchayat in W.P. 
               Nos. 5811, 5812 and 5813 of 2011.
               Mr. Tekade h/f Mr. A.S. Mardikar for applicant-intervener. 

                                    28/86




                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::
     Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                     CORAM : S.A. BOBDE &
                                               PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.




                                                                                  
                                     RESERVED ON        :  7th  MARCH, 2012.




                                                         
                                       PRONOUNCED ON  :  22nd   MARCH, 2012




                                                        
               JUDGMENT :{PER S.A. BOBDE, J.}1.             By these petitions, the petitioners, who are owners 




                                           
               and occupiers of land, have in effect challenged the laying of a 
                          
               400   KV   electric   transmission   line   from   Koradi-II   to   Wardha 
                         
               (Power   Grid).     The   laying   of   the   electric   line   involves   the 

               construction of towers in the land of the petitioners.  Though the 
               


               challenges are not common to all petitions, the petitioners have 
            



               questioned the vires ofSection 164of the Electricity Act, 2003 

               andSection 10of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.   They have 





               also   challenged   the   notification   dated   24.08.06   issued   by   the 

               Government  of Maharashtra underSection 164of the Electricity 

               Act,   2003,   empowering     the   Maharashtra     State   Electricity 





               Transmission     Company     Ltd.     (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the 

               "Transmission Company") to exercise the powers of a Telegraph29/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::Pandit                                                      wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               Authority   for   the   purpose   of   laying   of   an   electric   lines.     The 




                                                                                     
               petitioners have also challenged the various orders of the District 




                                                            
               Magistrate   underSection   16(1)of   the   Indian   Telegraph   Act, 

               1885   permitting   the     transmission   company   to   exercise   the 




                                                           
               powers of laying an electric lines after finding that the resistance 

               or   obstruction   of   the   petitioners   is   not   justified   and   further 

               directing the  to pay requisite compensation to the petitioners in 




                                             
               accordance with law within a period of one month from the date 
                          
               of completion of the work.THE PROJECT:2.             The respondent no.2  -  Transmission  Company  has 
            



               set up a power station at Koradi for generation of electricity. The 

               respondent no.2 is a Government Company within the meaning 





               ofSection 617of the Companies Act   and it has planned the 

               construction of  a transmission line for 400/220 KV from Koradi 

               to   Wardha.     Both   the   terminal   points     where   the   power   is 





               generated and where it is meant to reach are within the State of 

               Maharashtra.     By   now,   according   to   the   respondents,   at   least30/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::Pandit                                                    wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               80% of the work is completed.3.             This  project is  known  as  "Construction  of 400 KV 

               DCDC line from 400 KV Koradi to 400 KV Wardha (PG)".   The 




                                                         
               estimated cost is Rs.36,137/- Lakhs.   The completion period for 

               the project is two years.   Since it is necessary to lay an electric 

               line   for   the   purpose   of   transmission   of   energy,   in   the   same 




                                           
               manner as a telegraph line, the Government of Maharashtra, in 
                          
               exercise   of   powers   underSection   164of   the   Electricity   Act, 
                         
               2003,   conferred   powers   of   a   telegraph   Authority   on   the 

               Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. by an 
               


               order dated 24.08.06.  This company is engaged in the business 
            



               of   transmission   of   electricity   generated   in   the   State   of 

               Maharashtra. The respondent no.2- Transmission Company has 





               been thus conferred with the powers of a telegraph Authority for 

               the   purpose   of   placing   of   electrical   lines   for   transmission   of 

               electricity   for   the   proper   coordination   of   work.   This 





               authorization underSection 164is a general authorization for 

               placing of electrical lines generally and not for a specific electric31/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::Pandit                                                    wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               line.OBSTRUCTION   BY   PETITIONERS   AND   ORDER   THEREON 
               UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885.4.             The   Maharashtra   State   Electricity   Transmission 

               Company Ltd.  has undertaken the task of laying the electric line 

               in   question   known   as   the   400   KV   Koradi   to   Wardha   (PG 




                                           
               Transmission   Line).   The   panel   through     the   lands   of   many 
                          
               people along the way from Koradi to Wardha; a distance of over 
                         
               100 Kms.  The petitioners are occupiers of land along the route 

               of   the   proposed  electric   line.     Since   there   was  resistance   and 
               


               obstruction  to   the   laying  of  the   line   from   the   petitioners,   the 
            



               Transmission Company preferred an application to the District 

               Magistrate, Nagpur underSection 16(1)of the Indian Telegraph 





               Act, 1885 for permission to continue the work of transmission 

               lines.5.             In   the   application   to   the   District   Magistrate,   the 

               Transmission Company submitted that the work of construction32/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               of the line has been awarded to one M/s. COBRA - KCL (J.V.) 




                                                                                  
               who has been obstructed by the petitioner and the matter has 




                                                         
               been reported to the police;   that the work of transmission line 

               is getting stalled  on account of the obstructions created by the 




                                                        
               petitioners as well as others and, therefore, the  had to suspend 

               further   progress   of   the   work   and   approach   the   District 

               Magistrate   underSection   16(1)of   the   Indian   Telegraph   Act, 




                                           
               1885.  The  Transmission Company assured to pay the requisite 
                          
               compensation   to   the   petitioners   and   prayed   for   permission   to 
                         
               carry out the work of 400 KV Koradi   to Wardha   Power Grid 

               Transmission Line through the property of the petitioners and to 
               


               locate   towers.   The   District   Magistrate   issued   notice   to   the 
            



               petitioners,   who   filed   replies   to   the   applications   and   raised 

               several   objections   to   the   grant   of   such   permission.     The 





               petitioners   raised   several   objections   to   the   grant   of   the 

               application,   not   all   of   which   need   to   be   reproduced,   on   all 

               aspects of the matter including the ground of a health hazard 





               due to the transmission line.   The District Magistrate, however, 

               came to the conclusion that the work has been undertaken by33/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:47 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               the  under the statutory obligation imposed bySection 39of the 




                                                                                    
               Electricity   Act   as   it   is   a   State   transmission   utility.   The 




                                                          
               transmission   of   electricity   is   public   work.     That   the   route   of 

               transmission has been finalized after surveying and considering 




                                                         
               the feasibility, technical and engineering  aspects.   The District 

               Magistrate,  therefore,  granted  permission  to  the    to  carry out 

               and continue  the  work of  the  transmission  line under  powers 




                                            
               underSection   164of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003.     The   District 
                          
               Magistrate     directed   the     Transmission   Company   to   pay   the 
                         
               requisite compensation in accordance with law.6.             The   petitioners   have,   thereafter,   approached     this 
            



               court   challenging   the   said   order   and   the   notification   underSection 164of the  Electricity Act 2003.   The petitioners have 





               also questioned the validity ofSection 164of the Electricity Act, 

               2003 andSection 10of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.CHALLENGE   TO   THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   VALIDITY   OF 
               SECTION 164 OF THE ELECTRICTY ACT, 2003 AND SECTION 
               10 OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885.34/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                 wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc7.Section   164of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   reads   as 




                                                                                
               follows:-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   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   theIndian 





                           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   a35/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                              telegraph   established   or   maintained,   by   the 




                                                                                  
                              Government or to be so established or maintained.It   is   undisputed   that   the   transmission   company   is 

               acting   under   the   authorization   underSection   164of   the 




                                                        
               Electricity Act.8.          ig The   main   contention   raised   on   behalf   of   the 

               petitioners is that the entire scheme of  theElectricity Act, 2003and theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885, which provides for laying of 

               electric lines is unconstitutional being violative ofArticle 14of 

               the   Constitution   of   India   because   it   does   not   provide   for   a 
               
            



               hearing   to   the   land   owners   before   the   route,   over   which   the 

               electric line is to pass, is decided.  In other words, according to 





               the   petitioners,   if   the   Government   proposes   to   lay   down   an 

               electric   line   for   transmission   of   energy   from   one   point   to 

               another,  even  at   the   planning   stage  it  must  hear  all   the  land 





               owners on the route of the proposed electric line.  There being 

               no such provision for hearing,Sections 164of the Electricity Act36/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                       wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               2003 andSection 10of the Indian Telegraph Act are ultra viresArticle 14of the Constitution of India.9.Section 164of the Electricity Act, according to the 




                                                            
               petitioners, is bad, being arbitrary and violative ofArticle 14of 

               the Constitution of India on the  ground that it empowers the 

               appropriate Government to authorize a body, such as a public 




                                              
               office,   licensee   or     any   other   person   to   exercise   powers   of   a 
                           
               Telegraph  Authority  with  respect   to  placing   of  telegraph  lines 
                          
               and posts and without hearing the land owner. By this section, 

               Parliament   has   conferred   on   the   appropriate   Government   the 
               


               power to authorize a person or body under theElectricity Actto 
            



               exercise the specific powers of an authority under theTelegraph 

               Act.     At   the   stage   of   authorization,   it   is   not   possible   for   the 





               Government to know necessarily the particular area over which 

               the lines are to be laid and which land owners will be affected 

               thereby.   As  in  this  case, the  authorisation  may be  general  in 





               favour   of   a   transmission   company   or   in   a   given   case   special.Therefore,  no land owner can be said to be prejudiced by such37/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                  wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               authorization since the authorization does not contemplate the 




                                                                                 
               route over which the line will pass and the land which will be 




                                                        
               affected.  It is not disputed that the route is decided, not by the 

               Government   but   by   the   transmission   company.     There   is, 




                                                       
               therefore, no question   of hearing any land owner and of the 

               provision being unconstitutional because it does not provide for 

               such hearing.10.ig The validity ofSection 10of the Indian Telegraph 
                        
               Act,   1885,   was   challenged   on   the   ground   that   it   does   not 

               provide   for   hearing   of   the   land   owner   of   any   immovable 
               


               property under, over, along or across which an electric line is to 
            



               be placed.     It was also contended thatSection 10, particularly 

               Clause   (c)   thereof,   invidiously     discriminates   between   local 





               authority and ordinary citizen  in that it requires the authority to 

               exercise its powers in respect of the property  of a local authority 

               only by obtaining permission of that authority whereas no such 





               permission is required in relation to the property of an ordinary 

               citizen.Section 10of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, reads as38/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               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 
                           posts; 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 this39/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                    wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                              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.11.            The   validity   ofSection   16was   questioned   on   the 




                                            
               ground   that   it   makes   no   express   provision   for   hearing   by   a 
                          
               District   Magistrate.Section   16provides   for   the   District 
                         
               Magistrate   to   permit   the   exercise   of   such   powers   if   there   is 

               resistance   or   obstruction   to   such   exercise.Section   16also 
               


               provides for compensation and reads as follows :-16. Exercise of powers conferred bysection 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 insection 
                              10in 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.40/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                            wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                    (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 
                    undersection 188of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 




                                                 
                    (45 of 1860).(3)  If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency 
                    of  the   compensation   to  be   paid  undersection  10, 




                                  
                 ig 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,41/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                             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 




                                           
                          ig received the same.Section 10does not contemplate notice to an owner 
                        
               or occupier of land to show cause against the laying of a line and 

               authorizes   the   telegraph   authority   to   place   a   telegraph   line 
               


               under,   over,   along   or   across   any   immovable   property.     The 
            



               proviso makes it clear that the Central Government thereby does 

               not acquire any right other than that of user in the property vide(b).  Clause (d) provides for payment of full compensation to all 

               persons interested in the land for any damage sustained by them 





               by reason of exercise of those powers.12.Section 16provides that if there is any resistance or42/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                      wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               obstruction, the District Magistrate may in his discretion order 




                                                                                     
               that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise the 




                                                            
               powers.     Further,   after   such   an   order   a   person   offering   any 

               further   resistance   deemed   to   have   committed   offence   underSection 188of the Indian Penal Code.Section 16also provides 

               for a decision on the sufficiency of compensation by the District 

               Judge.Section 16thus contemplates a decision of the District 




                                             
               Magistrate to enquire: whether the resistance or obstruction is 
                          
               justified and  to direct the  further  exercise  of  powers.    It  also 
                         
               contemplates a decision by the District Judge  on the question of 

               compensation.   Though the section does not expressly provide 
               


               for a hearing by the District Magistrate on whether the authority 
            



               should be permitted to exercise their power in case of resistance 

               or obstruction.   There is no doubt that such an order involves 





               civil consequences in that the authority acquires rights of user in 

               the   land   of   a   citizen   and,   therefore,   such   a   decision   must   be 

               preceded by hearing the one who obstructs.  There is no doubt 





               that the acquisition of rights of user over land is an act of such a 

               nature   as   would   require   the   executive   to   hear   the   person43/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               affected.   Indeed,   it   was   not   disputed   on   behalf   of   the 




                                                                                  
               Transmission Company that the land owner has a right of being 




                                                         
               heard   underSection   16(1).     As   referred   to   above,   the 

               Transmission Company   has moved applications for permission 




                                                        
               to exercise their   rights before the District Magistrate, who has 

               issued   notice   to   the   petitioners   and   has,   after   hearing   them, 

               passed orders permitting the exercise of powers.13.ig Similarly,   it   is   not   disputed   on   behalf   of   the 
                         
               respondents   that   the   dispute   regarding   the   sufficiency   of 

               compensation can be resolved   by the District Judge only after 
               


               hearing   all   concerned.     It   may   be   noted   that   sub-section   (4) 
            



               provides that the District Judge shall give notice to the parties 

               and   hear   them   for   determining   which   persons   are   entitled   to 





               receive   compensation   and   in   what   proportion.   Thus   from   the 

               scheme   ofSections   10and16,   though   a   hearing   is   not 

               contemplated before  an electric line is placed in any immovable 





               property, such a hearing is contemplated if there is obstruction 

               or resistance to such placing.   Taken separately, no hearing is44/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                    wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               contemplated   underSection   10and   a   limited   hearing   is 




                                                                                   
               contemplated underSection 16.14.            According to Mr. Joshi, Mr. Mandlekar, the learned 




                                                         
               counsel for the petitioners, the authorities themselves are bound 

               to grant a hearing to the land owners.  According to the learned 

               counsel such a hearing should be granted even at the stage the 




                                           
               authorities are planning the route over which the line is to pass 
                          
               and at the stage where the  appropriate Government decides to 
                         
               authorize   a   person   to   exercise   the   powers   of   a   Telegraph 

               Authority   underSection   164of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003.     As 
               


               observed earlier, there is no merit in this contention since at the 
            



               stage   of   authorization   underSection   164even   a   particular 

               project may not  be contemplated at all.  Moreover, the decision 





               to mark a route for laying an electric line is a highly specialized 

               and technical decision and unrelated to any specific land owner.Moreover, the route may be over hundreds of kilometers passing 





               over   Government  lands,  lands  of   local   authorities   and  private 

               lands and it may not be practicable to hear land owners along45/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                      wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               the entire route.  Having regard to the specialized and technical 




                                                                                     
               nature   of   the   task   and   the   fact   that   the   lines   are   laid   for 




                                                            
               distribution of an essential material resource of the community, 

               Parliament   has   not   provided   for   any   notice   or   hearing   to   the 




                                                           
               public at large or to specific land owners at the stage of planning 

               of the route.15.         ig  It was also contended thatSection 10of the Indian 

               Telegraph   Act,   1885,   which   confers   the   power   to   place   an 
                         
               electric lines on a Telegraph Authority and upon authorization 

               on an Electricity Authority, is unconstitutional being violative ofArticle 14because it confers unfettered powers on an authority 
            



               to lay down lines anywhere they please.  Apart from the fact that 

               section does not confer un-canalized arbitrary powers but only 





               empowers the authority in regard to do a specific act namely, to 

               lay down an electric lines, we find that a challenge, such as this, 

               is not tenable against such provisions.IMMUNITY FROM CHALLENGE:46/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc16.            Mr.     Deshpande   and   Mr.   Manohar,   the   learned 




                                                          
               counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885contained inPart III of the Actand 




                                                         
               the provisions of theElectricity Act, 2003contained inPart VIII 

               of   the   Actand   all   incidental   provisions     must   be   treated   as 

               immune  from challenge on the grounds of violation ofArticles 




                                            
               14and19by a virtue ofArticle 31Aof the Constitution of India.It   is   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   that   the   constitutional 
                         
               validity of the provisions has been questioned by the petitioners 

               either on the ground of breach ofArticle 14for not providing an 
               


               opportunity for the land owners and occupiers to be heard  or on 
            



               the ground ofArticle 19i.e. the alleged interference with their 

               right to carry on their trade, occupation etc. due to the placing 





               of lines.  In the submission of the learned counsel challenges on 

               these   grounds   are   not   permissible   by   virtue   ofArticle   31A.Article 31Areads as follows:-"31A.  Saving of laws providing for acquisition of 
                              estates, etc.---47/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                         wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                    (1)   Notwithstanding anything contained inarticle 




                                                                        
                    13, no law providing for -(a)   the acquisition by the State of any estate or of 




                                               
                          any   rights   therein   or   the   extinguishment   or 
                          modification of any such rights, or(b)   the   taking   over   of   the   management   of   any 




                                              
                          property   by   the   State   for   a   limited   period 
                          either   in   the   public   interest   or   in   order   to 
                          secure   the   proper   management   of   the 




                               
                 ig       property, or(c)   the   amalgamation   of   two   or   more 
                          corporations either in the public interest or in 
               
                          order   to   secure   the   proper   management   of 
                          any of the corporations, or(d)   the   extinguishment   or   modification   of   any 
               


                          rights   of   managing   agents,   secretaries   and 
            



                          treasurers, managing directions, directors or 
                          managers   of   corporations,   or   of   any   voting 
                          rights of shareholders thereof, or(e)   the   extinguishment   or   modification   of   any 
                          rights   accruing   by   virtue   of   any   agreement, 
                          lease or licence for the purpose of searching 





                          for, or winning, any mineral or mineral oil, or 
                          the premature termination or cancellation of 
                          any such agreement, lease or licence,48/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                          wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                    shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is 




                                                                         
                    inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of 
                    the rights conferred byarticle 144orarticle 19:Provided that where such law is a law made 
                    by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this 
                    article   shall   not   apply   thereto   unless   such   law, 




                                               
                    having  been  reserved  for  the  consideration  of  the 
                    President, has received his assent:Provided  further  that  where  any  law makes 




                                 
                 ig any provision for the acquisition by the State of any 
                    estate and where any land comprised therein is held 
                    by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall 
               
                    not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of 
                    such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable  to 
                    him under any law for the time being in force or 
               


                    any   building   or   structure   standing   thereon   or 
            



                    appurtenant  thereto, unless the law relating to the 
                    acquisition   of   such   land,   building   or   structure, 
                    provides   for   payment   of   compensation   at   a   rate 





                    which   shall   not   be   less   than   the   market   value 
                    thereof.(2)   In this article, --(a)   the expression "estate" shall, in relation to any 
                          local   area,   have   the   same   meaning   as   that 
                          expression   or   its   local   equivalent   has   in   the49/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                      wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                      existing law relating to land tenures in force 




                                                                                     
                                      in that area and shall also include--(i) any jagir, inam or muafi  or other similar 




                                                            
                                            grant and in the States of Tamil Nadu and 
                                            Kerala, any janmam right;(ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement;(iii)any   land   held   or   let   for   purposes   of 
                                            agriculture   or   for   purposes   ancillary 
                                            thereto, including waste land, forest land, 




                                             
                           ig               land for pasture or sites of buildings and 
                                            other structures occupied by cultivators of 
                                            land,   agricultural   labourers   and   village 
                         
                                            artisans;(b)     the   expression   "rights",   in   relation   to   an 
                               estate,   shall   include   any   rights   vesting   in   a 
               


                               proprietor, sub-proprietor, under-proprietor, tenure-holder,   raiyat,   under-raiyat   or   other   intermediary 
                               and   any   rights   or   privileges   in   respect   of   land 
                               revenue."The first question that arises is, what is the nature 





               of the provisions contained in Part VIII (Sections 67to69) of theElectricity   Act,   2003and   Part   III   (Sections   10to   19B)   of   theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885?   In substance, these provisions do50/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               not provide for the acquisition of any estate but only   for the 




                                                                                    
               acquisition,   extinguishment   or   modification   of   rights   in   the 




                                                           
               estate.   The term "estate" is defined inArticle 31ASub-clause 

               (2) to include all kinds of land referred to in Sub-clause (iii) of 




                                                          
               Clause (a) as follows:"(iii)     any   land   held   or   let   for   purposes   of 
                              agriculture   or   for   purposes   ancillary     thereto,including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or 
                           ig sites of buildings and other structures occupied by 
                              cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village 
                         
                              artisans."The   land   of   the   petitioners,   which   is   largely   agricultural,   fall 
               


               within the meaning of the term "estate".The term "rights" has been defined to include any 





               rights vesting in a proprietor, sub-proprietor etc.  vide Clause (b) 

               of Sub-Article (2).   Under the provisions of theElectricity Act, 





               2003and   theIndian   Telegraph   Act,   1885in   question,   the 

               authorities, under directions of the Government, acquire several 

               rights in estates. Those rights are in the nature of opening up51/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                    wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               and breaking up of the soil and pavement of any street, railway 




                                                                                   
               or tramway upon certain conditions, the power to lay overhead 




                                                          
               lines and for that purpose do all things necessary, including the 

               removal of trees, structures and objects, videSections 67and68of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   or   the   old   Act   of   1910.     The 

               authorities also acquire the rights over estates, such as the user 

               of   property   under,   over,   along,   across,   in   or   upon   which   the 




                                           
               telegraph authority places any line or post vide 10(b), the right 
                          
               to enter the property in order to repair or remove lines vide 11, 
                         
               the power to alter position of gas or water pipes or drains vide 

               14 and further to apply for an order for removing resistance or 
               


               obstruction   to   the   exercise   of   such   a   right   by   a   District 
            



               Magistrate.    The effect of Clause (b) to the proviso toSection 

               10of the Telegraph Act is that though the authority may place 





               etc.   a   line   upon   any   immovable   property,   the   Central 

               Government thereby does not acquire any right other than that 

               of user only in the property.   Thus, the provisions in question 





               must be construed as law providing for the acquisition of rights 

               in any estate within the meaning ofArticle 31Aand, therefore,52/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                  wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               cannot   be   deemed   to   be   void   on   the   ground   that   they   are 




                                                                                 
               inconsistent with or take away or breach any of the fundamental 




                                                        
               right   conferred byArticles 14or 19 of the Constitution.     An 

               executive act performed under the law in question, namely, of 




                                                       
               deciding to enter upon and entering the property of owners, is 

               also not vitiated on the ground that the initial attempt to enter 

               the property for the purpose of placing lines was not preceded 




                                          
               by notice or hearing.  As observed earlier, the scheme of the law 
                         
               is that the person offering resistance or obstruction is entitled to 
                        
               be heard  when the transmission company applies for removal of 

               such   resistance   and   obstruction   underSection   16(1).   In   our 
               


               view,   though   not   expressly   provided   for,   the   requirement   of 
            



               hearing must be read intoSection 16 (i).  We are informed that 

               as a practice land owners are always heard when applications 





               are made by a transmission company for removal of obstruction 

               and   resistance.     The   requirement   to   hear   the   owners   or 

               occupiers at this stage is, in our view, sufficient compliance with 





               the rules of natural justice and, admittedly, in the present case 

               all the petitioners have been heard by the District Magistrate.53/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc17.            It   was   contended   by   Mr.   R.P.   Joshi,   the   learned 




                                                           
               counsel for the petitioners that to the extent the fundamental 

               rights are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, even the 




                                                          
               validity   of   laws   placed   in   the   Nineth   Schedule   can   be   tested 

               against   the   basic   structure   of   the   Constitution   as   held   by   the 

               Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs. vs. State of T.N. -(2007) 2 SCC 1.   No question of any  immunity on the ground 
                          
               that the laws are placed in the Nineth Schedule arises here.  In 
                         
               fact,   we   find   that   in   Coelho's   case   the   Supreme   Court 

               distinguished   between   the   scheme   of   immunity   provided   byArticle 31AandArticle 31B.It observed in relation toArticle 
            



               31Athat, 

                              ".......Article   31-A   does   not   exclude   uncatalogued 





                              number of laws from challenge on the basis of Part 
                              III.   It provides for a standard by which laws stand 
                              excluded from judicial review......."Thus   the   reliance   on   the   observations   of   the 

               Supreme Court in Coelho's case for the proposition that it is not54/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               permissible to override the entire Part III of the Constitution by 




                                                                                    
               invokingArticle 31Aare misplaced.18.            Mr. Manohar relied on the judgment of the Supreme 




                                                          
               Court   in   K.T.   Plantation   Private   Limited   and   anr.   vs.   State   of 

               Karnataka -  (2011) 9 SCC 1  and submitted that the Supreme 

               Court has reiterated that a law is immune from challenge on the 




                                            
               ground   of   arbitrariness,   unreasonableness   underArticle   14of 
                          
               the Constitution of India.   In the context of a law made by the 
                         
               Legislature of a State, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-"208. We have already found, on facts as well as on 
                              law, that the impugned Act has got the assent of the 
               


                              President   as   required   under   the   proviso   toArticle 
            



                              31-A(1),   hence,   immune   from   challenge   on   the 
                              ground   of   arbitrariness,   unreasonableness     underArticle 14of the Constitution of India.209. Statutes   are   many   which   though   deprive   a 
                              person of his property, have the protection ofArticle 
                              30(1-A),Articles   31-A,   31-B,   31-Cand   hence   are 





                              immune from challenge underArticle 19orArticle 
                              14,   the   basic   structure   and   the   rule   of   law,   apart 
                              from the ground of legislative competence.   In I.R.55/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                              Coelho case the basic structure was defined in terms 




                                                                                    
                              of fundamental rights as reflected underArticles 14, 
                              15, 19, 20, 21and32.In that case the Court held 




                                                           
                              that statutes mentioned in Schedule IX are immune 
                              from   challenge   on   the   ground   of   violation   of 
                              fundamental rights, but if such laws violate the basic 




                                                          
                              structure, they no longer enjoy the immunity offered 
                              by Schedule IX."19.         ig Mr. Joshi, the learned   counsel for the petitioners 

               relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of 
                         
               K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that a law, though protected 

               byArticle   31-A,   may   still   be   attacked   on   the   ground   that   it 

               violates the rule of law or basic structure of the Constitution.However, there is nothing in the present provisions which can be 

               shown to have violated  the rule of law or the basic structure of 





               the Constitution.  Mr. Joshi also relied on certain observations of 

               the   Supreme   Court   inSahara   India     (Firm),   Lucknow   vs. 

               Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,   Central-Iand   anr.   -  (2008)   14 





               SCC   151  and   submitted   that   a   hearing   is   an   essential 

               requirement before an administrative action is taken.  In Sahara56/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               India, however, the Supreme Court was considering, whether a 




                                                                                  
               hearing before an order underSection 142(2-A) of the Income 




                                                         
               Tax   Actrequiring   special   audit   was   necessary.     The   Supreme 

               Court observed that, an order under the said provisions of theIncome Tax Actleads to serious civil consequences and though 

               the   provision   does   not   either   provide   or   bar   a   pre-decision 

               hearing,   the   principle   of  audi   alteram   partem  will   have   to   be 




                                           
               read in such a provision.20.            Mr.   Joshi   also   relied   on   the   decisions   of   the 

               Supreme Court inRaghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryanaand ors. - (2012) 1 SCC 792 and Darshanlal Nagpal (Dead) By 
            



               LRs.   vs.   Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi   and   ors.,   where   the 

               Supreme   Court   discussed   the   importance   of   natural   justice 





               enshrined inSection 5Aof the Land Acquisition Act before any 

               person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition.The   Supreme   Court   held   that   such   a   person   must   have   an 





               opportunity  to oppose the decision of the State Government to 

               acquire the particular parcel of land, particularly since he may57/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               also   point   out   that   the   land   proposed   to   be   acquired   is   not 




                                                                                    
               suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued underSection 4(1).  The present case does not involve the acquisition 

               of land but only the user by the State for a limited purpose, for 




                                                         
               which   there   is   provision   for   payment   of   compensation.Moreover,   it   seems   unreasonable   to   confer   on   the   owners   or 

               occupiers of land a choice about what should be the route of the 




                                            
               electric line and where it should be placed, since such a decision 
                          
               must yield to the dictates of technical knowledge, expertise and 
                         
               viability.   There is no doubt that if all owners and occupiers of 

               land over hundreds of kilometers are allowed to have a say and 
               


               object to the routes and if the validity of the orders passed under 
            



               objection   is   allowed   to   be   contested,   the   route   may   not   get 

               finalized   for   years.     Having   regard   to   the   importance   of 





               electricity to the life of citizen, particularly to essential services 

               and industry, such a procedure would be detrimental to public 

               interest.  Similarly, the observations in Darshanlal Nagpal's case, 





               emphasizing   the   importance   of   the   rules   of   natural   justice 

               cannot be applied to the present case.  Apart from the fact that58/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               challenge on the ground ofArticle 14is excluded by virtue ofArticle 31A, we are of the view that the present case calls for a 




                                                         
               situational exception and of necessity, the authorities   may not 

               be compelled to hear owners and occupiers before deciding on 




                                                        
               the   route   over   which   an   electric   line   should   be   placed.Therefore,   the   contention   that     the   legislative   scheme,   which 

               does   not   require   the   authorities   to   hear   the   owners   and 




                                           
               occupiers of the land while planning the route of an electric line 
                          
               is   unconstitutional,   is   rejected.     So   also   the   contention   thatSection 164of the Electricity Act, 2003 andSection 10of the 

               Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are void being violative ofArticle 14is rejected.21.            At this stage, we must record the fact that at the 





               suggestion   of   the   Court,   the   respondents   offered   to   hear   the 

               petitioners on whether any adjustments could be made in the 

               route   and   also   offered   to   make   such   adjustments   subject   to 





               technical   advise   and   feasibility,   through   independent   officers.The respondents also agreed to consider the petitioners' case for59/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                      wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               higher   compensation   in   certain   cases,   through   independent 




                                                                                     
               officers.     However,   the   petitioners   rejected   the   offer   on   the 




                                                            
               ground   that   they   had   no   faith   in   the   respondents   or   their 

               officers.22.            We do not see any merit in the contention that the 

               provisions  are  violative  ofArticle  21on  the   ground  that  they 




                                             
               adversely affect the health of persons living in or around high 
                            
               tension   lines.    In  the   first  place,   the   electric   line  in   question, 
                           
               which   is   high   tension   400   KV   line   is     to   be   placed   over 

               agricultural fields and not over a residential area. Secondly, no 
               


               proof is placed before the court to enable it to draw an inference 
            



               that the placing of electric line causes cancer as alleged. We are 

               unable   to   draw   this   inference   on   the   basis   of   a   report   from 





               Australia placed on record.ACTION   ARBITRARY   FOR   NOT   OBTAINING   CONSENT 





               UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910:23.            It was next  contended on behalf of the petitioners60/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               that   the   action   of   the   transmission   company   in   placing   the 




                                                                                  
               electrical line over the lands of the petitioners without obtaining 




                                                         
               the consent of the owner or occupier  is violative ofSection 12 

               (2)of the Electricity Act, 1910.Section 12(2)of the said Act 




                                                        
               reads as follows:-12.   Provisions   as   to   the   opening   and   breaking   of 
                             streets, railways and tramways. -  (1)  ........(2)   Nothing  contained in sub-section  (1) shall be 
                          ig deemed   to   authorise     or   empower   a   licensee, 
                             without the consent of the local authority or of the 
                        
                             owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, 
                             lay down or place any electric supply-line, or other 
                             work in, through or against any building, or on, over 
               


                             or   under   any   land   not   dedicated   to   public   use 
            



                             whereon,   whereover   or   whereunder   any   electric 
                             supply line or  work  has not already been  lawfully 
                             laid down or placed by such licensee:Provided that any support of an overhead line 
                             or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of 
                             securing in position any support an over-head line 





                             may be fixed on any building or land or, having been 
                             so   fixed   may   be   altered,   notwithstanding   the 
                             objection of the owner or occupier of such building61/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                             or land, if the District Magistrate or in a Presidency-town the Commissioner of Police by order in writing 
                             so directs:Provided, also, that, if any time the owner or 
                             occupier of any building or land on which any such 
                             support, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient 




                                                        
                             cause,   the   District   Magistrate   or,   in   a   Presidency-
                             town   the  Commissioner  of  Police  may by  order   in 
                             writing direct any such support, stay or struct to be 




                                           
                           igremoved or altered.This contention is misplaced   in view of the provisions of theElectricity Act, 2003.This Actwas enacted for consolidating the 

               laws   relating   to   generation,   transmission,   distribution,   trading 
               


               and   use   of   electricity   and     generally   for   taking   measures 
            



               conducive to development of electricity industry.  The Statement 

               of   Objects   and   Reasons   specifically   referred   to   the   need   of 





               harmonising   and   rationalising     the   provisions   of   theIndian 

               Electricity Act, 1910and the necessity to enact new legislation 





               for   regulating   the   electricity   supply     industry   in   the   country 

               which   would   replace   the   existing   laws.Section   185of   the 

               Electricity   Act,  2003   repealed   theIndian   Electricity  Act,   191062/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               containingSection   12relied   upon   by   the   petitioners.Section 




                                                                                  
               185reads as follows:-185. Repeal   and   saving.--   (1)   Save   as   otherwise 
                             provided in thisAct, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910(9 of 2010), theElectricity (Supply) Act, 1948(54 




                                                        
                             of 1948) and theElectricity Regulatory Commissions 
                             Act, 1998(14 of 1998) are hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, --ig (a) anything done or any action taken or purported 
                             to   have   been   done   or   taken   including   any   rule, 
                        
                             notification,   inspection,   order   or   notice   made   or 
                             issued   or   any   appointment,   confirmation   or 
                             declaration   made   or   any   licence,   permission, 
               


                             authorisation   or   exemption   granted   or   any 
            



                             document or instrument executed or any direction 
                             given under the repealed laws shall, insofar as it is 
                             not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be 





                             deemed   to   have   been   done   or   taken   under   the 
                             corresponding provisions of this Act;(b)  the provisions contained insections 12to18of 
                             the   Indian   Electricity   Act,   1910   (9   of   1910),   and 
                             rules   made   thereunder   shall   have   effect   until   the63/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                           wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                    rules undersections 67to69of this Act are made;(c)   the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made undersection 37of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 
                    1910) as it stood before such repeal shall continue 
                    to be in force till the regulations undersection 53of 




                                                
                    this Act are made.(d)  all rules made under sub-section (1) of section 




                                  
                 ig 69 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) 
                    shall   continue   to   have   effect   until   such   rules   are 
                    rescinded or modified, as the case may be;(e)  all directives issued, before the commencement 
                    of   this   Act,   by   a   State   Government   under   the 
               


                    enactments specified in the Schedule shall continue 
            



                    to   apply   for   the   period   for   which   such   directions 
                    were issued by the State Government.(3)   The provisions  of the enactments  specified in 
                    the Schedule, not inconsistent with the provisions of 
                    this   Act,   shall   apply   to   the   States   in   which   such 





                    enactments are applicable.(4)     The   Central   Government   may,   as   and   when64/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                             considered   necessary,   by   notification,   amend   the 




                                                                                  
                             Schedule.(5)   Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), 
                             the   mention   of   particular   matters   in   that   section, 
                             shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general 




                                                        
                             application ofsection 6of the General Clauses Act, 
                             1897   (10   of   1897),   with   regard   to   the   effect   of 
                             repeals.24.ig According   to   the   petitioners   since   Rules   have   not 

               been made underSections 67to69of the new Act of 2003, the 
                         
               provisions contained inSections 12to18continue to have effect 

               as provided by Clause (b) above and, therefore, the respondents 
               


               were bound to obtain the consent of the owners and occupiers of 
            



               the   land   underSection   12.     This   submission   is   based   on   an 

               erroneous assumption that the act of placing an electric line is 





               being performed by the   Transmission Company underSection 

               12of the Electricity Act, 1910 which is temporarily saved as a 





               transitory provision till the enactments of rules.     On the other 

               hand, the State of Maharashtra has issued a notification under65/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.docSection   164of   the   new   Act   of   2003   conferring   powers   with 




                                                                                  
               respect to the  placing of telegraph lines  and posts, which the 




                                                         
               Telegraph Authority possesses under theIndian Telegraph Act, 

               1885for the purpose of placing of electric line for transmission 




                                                        
               of   electricity   on   the   Transmission   Company.     When   such   a 

               notification is issued under theElectricity Act, 2003in terms, the 

               person   authorized   exercises     powers   of   a   Telegraph   Authority 




                                           
               under the provisions of theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885and not 
                          
               powers underSections 12to18of the old Act, 1910 which are 
                         
               temporarily saved.   It is  obvious  that after such authorization 

               underSection   164of   the   new   Act   2003,   the     Transmission 
               


               Company   is   bound   to   exercise   the   powers   of   a   Telegraph 
            



               Authority with respect of placing of telegraph lines and posts for 

               the purpose of placing of an electric line for the transmission of 





               electricity.   These   powers   are   found   inPart-III   of   the   Indian 

               Telegraph   Act,   1885videSections   10to16.     None   of   these 

               provisions provide for obtaining consent of an owner or occupier 





               of the land.  The legislative scheme in regard to the electric lines 

               is that after the repeal of theIndian Electricity Act, 1910, the66/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               work of placing of electrical lines must be done underSections 




                                                                                  
               12to18of the old Act 1910 till rules are framed underSections 




                                                         
               67and68of the newElectricity Act, 2003.  If there is any such 

               notification underSection 164of the new Act 2003, conferring 




                                                        
               powers   of   the   Telegraph   Authority   for   the   purpose   of   placing 

               electric  lines, during  the  transitory period when  rules  are  not 

               framed underSections 67and68of the new Act 2003, the  did 




                                           
               not and cannot act underSections 12to18of the old Act, 1910.The   contention   on   behalf   of   the   petitioners   is,   therefore, 
                          
               rejected.25.            In this context, Mr. Manohar the learned counsel for 
            



               the   respondent-MSETC   relied   on   judgments   of   different   High 

               Courts.     In   Himmatbhai   Vallabhbhai   Patel   vs.   Chief   Engineer 





               (Project),   Gujarat   Energy   Transmission   &   Ors.     -  AIR   2011 

               (NOC) 405 (GUJ.), the Gujarat High Court held thatSection 12of   the   Electricity   Act,   1910   has   no   application   where   an 





               authorization   has   been   issued   underSection   164of   the 

               Electricity   Act,   2003   conferring   the   powers   of   Telegraph67/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               Authority on the Transmission Company.InBraham Singh vs. 




                                                                                  
               State of U.P. & Ors.- AIR 2008 (NOC) 2034 (ALL), the Allahabad 




                                                         
               High Court relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in E. 

               Venkatesan & Ors. vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 




                                                        
               Madras & Ors. -  AIR 1977 Madras 64, where the Madras High 

               Court held that when a Licensee exercises powers underSection 

               51of the Electricity Act read withSection 10of the Telegraph 




                                           
               Act, the owner is not entitled to any notice before laying the poll 
                          
               or construct any tower, nor any consent is required from them.In     G.V.S.   Rama   Krishna   s/oNageswara   Rao   &   Ors.   vs.   A.P. 

               Transco- AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 158, the Andhra Pradesh 
               


               High Court held that underSection 164of the Electricity Act, 
            



               2003 read withSection 10of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, 

               the Transmission Company   could proceed to place an electric 





               polls for the transmission of electricity over private land without 

               any consent of the owner or occupier.InBharat Plywood and 

               Timber Products Private Ltd. vs. Kerala State Electricity Board 





               Trivandrumand ors. - AIR 1972 Kerala 47, a Full Bench of the 

               Kerala High Court held that it is not obligatory on the part of the68/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               authority which has been conferred with powers  of  Telegraph 




                                                                               
               Authority underSection 10to issue a prior notice to the owner 




                                                      
               of the property over which the electricity supply line is proposed 

               before exercising powers underSection 10.  In Rajak and ors. vs. 




                                                     
               National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Indore and anr. - AIR 

               1988   Madhya   Pradesh   172,   a   Division   Bench   of   the   Madhya 

               Pradesh High Court held that the petitioner could not object to 




                                         
               the implementation of a scheme for erection of tower and laying 
                         
               of transmission lines over certain lands on the ground that no 
                        
               notice is served on the land owners and the principles of natural 

               justice are not complied with.   We are in respectful agreement 
               


               with the view of the aforesaid High Courts.VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 164 OF THE 
               ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.26.           The   petitioners,   however,   have   challenged   the 

               notification   dated   24/8/2006   underSection   164of   the 





               Electricity Act, 2003 itself by which the  has been conferred with 

               powers of a Telegraph Authority for the purpose of placing an69/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                  wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               electric line.  According to the learned counsel for the petitioners 




                                                                                 
               the   appropriate   Government,   which   could   have   conferred 




                                                        
               powers upon the  Transmission Company underSection 164, is 

               not  the State Government, which has issued the authorization, 




                                                       
               but can only be the Central Government.     The   contention is 

               that  400 KV Koradi - Wardha line is being laid as a part of an 

               inter-State transmission as defined inSection 2sub-section (36) 




                                            
               and   the   appropriate   Government   is,   therefore,   the   Central 
                         
               Government   in   accordance   with   sub-section   (5)   ofSection   2.Sub-section (5) ofSection 2reads as follows:-2.   Definitions.-   In   this   Act,   unless   the   context 
                             otherwise requires, -(1) ......(2) .....(3) .....(4) ......(5)  "Appropriate Government" means-(a) the Central Goverment, -(i) in respect of a generating company wholly or 





                             partly owned by it;(ii)   in   relation   to   any   inter-State   generation, 
                             transmission,   trading   or   supply   of   electricity   and70/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                 wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                          with   respect   to   any   mines,   oil-fields,   railways, 




                                                                                
                          national   highways,   airports,   telegraphs, 
                          broadcasting   stations   and   any   works   of   defence, 




                                                       
                          dockyards, nuclear power installations;(iii)   in   respect   of   the   National   Load   Despatch 
                          Centre and Regional Load Despatch Centre;(iv)     in   relation   to   any   works   or   electric 
                          installation belonging to it or under its control;ig(b)  in any other case, the State Government having 
                          jurisdiction under this Act;Sub-section (36) ofSection 2reads as follows:-(36) "inter-State transmission system" includes-(i) any system for the conveyance  of electricity 
               


                          by   means   of   main   transmission   line   from   the 
            



                          territory of one State to another State;(ii)   the   conveyance   of   electricity   across   the 





                          territory   of   an   intervening   State   as   well   as 
                          conveyance within the State which is incidental to 
                          such inter-State transmission of electricity;(iii)     the   transmission   of   electricity   within   the 





                          territory   of   a   State   on   a   system   built,   owned, 
                          operated,   maintained   or   controlled   by   a   Central 
                          Transmission Utility;71/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                 wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                                                 




                                                                                
                             It is the petitioners' contention that the power that 

               is   generated   from   Koradi   is   proposed   to   be   transmitted   to 




                                                       
               Wardha   and   onwards     into   other   States   and,   therefore,   it 

               amounts   to   inter-State   transmission   within   the   meaning   of 




                                                      
               Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (36) ofSection 2.  Therefore, 

               the petitioners contend that the appropriate Government which 




                                          
               could   have   issued   the   said   authorization   is   the   Central 
                         
               Government in view of sub-section (5) ofSection 2. It may be 
                        
               noted that the authorization itself does not confer powers for the 

               purpose of placing electrical lines either for intra-State or inter-State transmission of electricity. Thus the contention is that the 
               
            



               impugned   authorization   by   which   the   State   Government   has 

               authorized the   Transmission Company to lay down an electric 





               lines cannot be utilized by the   for laying down an inter-State 

               transmission   line   because   the   State   Government   can   only 

               authorize   the   laying   down   of   an   intra-State   line   as   the 





               appropriate Government.  In other words, the  cannot lay down 

               400 KV Koradi to Wardha (PG) line since it is being laid for the72/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               purpose of inter-State transmission for which an authorization 




                                                                                  
               can only be made by the Central Government as the appropriate 




                                                         
               Government. The submission is not tenable.   It is not disputed 

               that   the     purports   to   exercise   the   powers   of   a   Telegraph 




                                                        
               Authority for the purpose of placing an electric line from Koradi 

               to Wardha in pursuance of the impugned authorization.  Clearly, 

               if the line were an inter-State line, the action of laying down an 




                                           
               inter-State line would be unauthorized if it is done under the 
                          
               impugned   authorization,   because   that   authorization   must   be 
                         
               considered as restricted to authorize the laying down of an intra-State line alone. According to the petitioners,   at the point at 
               


               which   the   line   terminates   at   Wardha,   the   Power   Grid 
            



               Corporation   of   India   Limited   (PGCIL)   connects   a   line   of   the 

               national grid to the State grid at Wardha and carries electricity 





               to another State and, therefore, the Koradi - Wardha line is an 

               inter-State   line.     This   contention   is   based   on   the   feasibility 

               report.27.            In the Feasibility Report for the line, the Brief Scope73/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               of Work is defined as follows:-1) Construction of 400 KV DCDC line from 400 KV 
                              Koradi   to   400   KV   Wardha   (PG)   with   quad 




                                                         
                              conductor.2) 400 KV Line Bays - 2 nos. at 400 KV Koradi-II 




                                                        
                              S/S.3) 400 KV Line Bays - 2 nos. at 400 KV Wardha 
                              (PG) S/S.




                                           
                           ig The petitioners, however, rely on the Objective and 

               Justification   stated   in   the   Feasibility   Report,   which   reads   as 
                         
               follows:Objective
                             400 KV Koradi-II S/S is proposed to be established 
               


                             to   evacuate   the   power   from   Koradi-TPS   and   from 
            



                             other private developers in that area. Above line is 
                             proposed   to   provide   interconnectivity   between 





                             PGCIL network and 400 KV Koradi-II.Justification
                             This   line   will   enable   evacuation   of   power   from 
                             central   sector   and   provide   connectivity   to   PGCIL 





                             network.The  petitioners contended that since the line is going to provide74/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               interconnectivity   between   PGCIL   and   Koradi-II   plant,   the   line 




                                                                                    
               must  be   taken   as   being  laid   for   inter-State  transmission.   This 




                                                           
               submission, though plausible, does not merit acceptance in this 

               case.  The 400 KV electric line in question is being constructed 




                                                          
               for  evacuation of power from Koradi Thermal Power Station to 

               Wardha   Power   Grid.     Both   points   are   within   the   State   of 

               Maharashtra.  From the Wardha Power Grid power is distributed 




                                            
               to various points in the State of Maharashtra which is apparent 
                          
               from the maps  Annexures RR2-1 and RR2-2 filed along with the 
                         
               additional submissions of the respondent no.2 dated 29/2/2012.It is a fact that the PGCIL has a national network for distribution 
               


               of power to various parts of the country and one of the points 
            



               from   which   it   takes   electricity   is   located   at   Wardha.   There   is 

               apparently some arrangement whereunder the PGCIL is entitled 





               to take electricity from the States in the country, including the 

               State of Maharashtra and one of the points is located at Wardha.It is in that sense that the Transmission Company has stated in 





               the Objective of Feasibility Report that the line is proposed to 

               provide interconnectivity between PGCIL network and 400 KV75/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               Koradi-II.   Merely   because   interconnectivity   with   the   national 




                                                                                  
               network is possible, it cannot be said that the line itself is being 




                                                         
               constructed for the purposes of inter-State transmission.  At this 

               juncture, it may be noted that the   Transmission Company has 




                                                        
               been   specified   as   a   State   Transmission   Utility   by   the   State 

               Government   under   sub-section   (1)   ofSection   39of   the 

               Electricity   Act,   2003   whose   functions   are   limited   to   transmit 




                                            
               electricity only through the intra-State transmission system vide 
                         
               sub-section (2) ofSection 39.   It is however bound to provide 
                        
               open  access  to its  transmission  system  to  other  licensees vide 

               39(2), which reads as follows:-39.     State Transmission Utility and functions.---(1) .........(2)   The   function   of   the   State   Transmission   Utility 
                             shall be ----(a) to undertake transmission of electricity through 
                             intra-State transmission system;(b)   to   discharge   all   functions   of   planning   and   co-ordination   relating   to   intra-State   transmission 
                             system with -(i)    Central Transmission Utility;76/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                          wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                           (ii)   State Governments;




                                                                         
                           (iii)  generating companies;
                           (iv)  Regional Power Committees;




                                                
                           (v)   Authority;
                           (vi)  licensees;(vii) any other person notified by the State 




                                               
                                  Government in this behalf;(c)   to   ensure   development   of   an   efficient,   co-
                    ordinated   and   economical   system   of   intra-State 




                                 
                 ig transmission lines for smooth flow of electricity from 
                    a generating station to the load centres;(d) to provide non-discriminatory open access to its 
               
                    transmission system for use by -(i)   any   licensee   or   generating   company   on 
                    payment of the transmission charges; or(ii)   any   consumer   as   and   when   such   open 
            



                    access  is  provided by  the   State   Commission  under 
                    sub-section   (2)   ofsection   42,   on   payment   of   the 
                    transmission   charges   and   a   surcharge   thereon,   as 





                    may be specified by the State Commission:Provided that such surcharge shall be utilised 
                    for   the   purpose   of   meeting   the   requirement   of 





                    current level cross-subsidy:Provided further that such surcharge and cross 
                    subsidies   shall   be   progressively   reduced   in   the77/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:48 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



                              manner   as   may   be   specified   by   the   State 




                                                                                    
                              Commission:Provided also that the manner of payment and 




                                                          
                              utilisation of the surcharge  shall be specified by the 
                              State Commission:Provided also that such surcharge shall not be 




                                                         
                              leviable in case open access is provided to a person 
                              who has established a captive generating plant for 
                              carrying the electricity to the destination of his own 




                                            
                           ig use.28.            Thus   a   State   Transmission   Utility,   such   as   the 
                         
               Transmission Company, may provide vide Clause (d) above, non-discriminatory open access to its transmission system for use by 
               


               any   other   Licensee   or   generating   companies   on   payment   of 
            



               transmission   charges   or   any   other   consumer.     It   is,   therefore, 

               clear   that   the   mere   provision   of   interconnectivity   with   the 





               national   grid   will   not   change   the   purpose   of   electric   line   in 

               question from intra-State to inter-State.   We are, therefore, of 





               the view that Koradi-Wardha line is an intra-State line and that 

               the  Transmission Company is properly carrying out the work of78/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                                      wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               construction of the line from Koradi TPS to Wardha under the 




                                                                                     
               authorization   dated   24/8/2006   issued   by   the   Government   of 




                                                            
               Maharashtra.CHALLENGE   TO   ORDERS   UNDER   SECTION   16   OF   THE 

               INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885:29.            It   must   be   noticed   thatSection   16empowers   the 




                                             
               District   Magistrate   to   make   an   order   that   the   Telegraph 
                          
               Authority shall be permitted to exercise powers   underSection 
                         
               10,   if   the   exercise   of   powers   for   placing   an   electric   line   is 

               resisted or obstructed.  Further the Section makes a provision for 
               


               an application to be made to the District Judge, in case a dispute 
            



               arises   concerning   the   sufficiency   of   compensation   to   be   paid 

               underSection 10.     In these cases, the applications were made 





               by the   to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the 

               property, over which the line is to be passed and a tower is to be 

               situated,   falls.     All   these   applications   were   duly   registered   as 





               revenue cases and the owners and occupiers of the land were 

               heard after notices were issued to them.   The applicant -  has79/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               pointed out its authorization to do the work of placing of the 




                                                                                  
               line and that the work was obstructed by the non-applicants and 




                                                         
               it  is   getting  stalled  on   account   of   obstructions   created  by   the 

               non-applicants   and   the   other   persons.   The   District   Magistrate 




                                                        
               has taken into   account the reply and documents filed by the 

               parties and after hearing the parties, has come to the conclusion 

               that   the   Transmission   Company   is   entitled   for   permission   to 




                                           
               carry   out   and   continue   the   work   of   the   transmission   line   in 
                          
               exercise of the statutory function  as a State Transmission Utility.It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners 

               had   raised   numerous   contentions   which   have   not   been   gone 
               


               into.     We   find   that   most   of   the   contentions   about   which 
            



               grievance is made that they were not considered are outside the 

               scope   of   enquiry   underSection   16,   such   as   whether   the 





               Government   of   Maharashtra   is   an   appropriate   Government   or 

               not,   whether   the   notification   underSection   164has   been 

               properly issued or not and whether the State Government can 





               issue a notification in respect of a law which can only be enacted 

               by Parliament under Entry 31 of List-I  of the Seventh Schedule80/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                                     wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               and so on.  In terms ofSection 16of the Indian Telegraph Act, 




                                                                                    
               1885,   the   enquiry   is   restricted   to   whether   there   is   any 




                                                           
               justification   for   resisting   or   obstructing   the   powers   underSection   10and   whether   the   Telegraph   Authority   should   be 




                                                          
               permitted to exercise the powers.  In the circumstances, we see 

               no merit in the contention, which is rejected.30.         ig It was next contended that the authorization underSection   164can   only   be   made,   inter   alia,   for   the   purpose   of 
                         
               proper   co-ordination   of   works   and   there   is   no   such   purpose 

               apparent from the authorization.  We fail to see any merit in this 
               


               contention.  Undoubtedly the term "works" in the context refers 
            



               to various activities referred inSection 67of the Electricity Act, 

               2003 such as opening and breaking up the soil and pavement of 





               any street, railway or tramway; opening and breaking up of any 

               sewer, drain or tunnel; altering the position of any line  or works 

               or pipes; laying down and placing electrical lines and all other 





               acts necessary for the transmission or supply of electricity.  This 

               obviously   requires   coordination   since   these   various   works   are81/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               normally   done   by   various   other   local   authorities   whose 




                                                                                  
               permission and cooperation is necessary to prevent a chaos.   It 




                                                         
               was   also   contended   by   Mr.   Sohoni   and   Mr.   Mandlekar   thatSection 10of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, only confers the 




                                                        
               power   to   place   a   telegraph   line   and   post.     Therefore,   the 

               transmission companies are not entitled to place towers instead 

               of posts.Section 3(5)defines the term "post" as follows:-ig3.     Definitions.-  In   this   Act,   unless   there   is 
                             something repugnant in the subject or context, -(1)    .....
                             (2)    .....
                             (3)    .....
               


                             (4)    .....
            



                             (5)    "post" means a post, pole, standard, stay, strutor   other   above   ground   contrivance   for   carrying, 
                             suspending or supporting a telegraph line;"A   tower   undoubtedly   supports   a   line   and,   therefore,   must   be 

               construed to be a post within the meaning of sub-section (5).The   work   for   telegraph   line   undoubtedly   be   understood   as 

               referring   to   an   electric   line   in   view   ofSection   164which82/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                                  wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               specifically empowers the appropriate Government to issue an 




                                                                                 
               order   in   writing   for   conferring   any   of   the   powers   of   the 




                                                        
               Telegraph   Authority   under   theTelegraph   Actwith   respect   to 

               placing of telegraph lines and post "for the placing of telegraph 




                                                       
               lines".31.           Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioners in 




                                          
               W. P. Nos. 5811/2011, 5812/2011, 5813/2011, 6093/2011 and 
                         
               6094/2011 submitted that the petitioners therein have not been 
                        
               given   an   opportunity   of   being   heard.     The   learned   counsel 

               referred to the communication by transmission company to the 
               


               Collector,   Wardha   where   only   seven   persons   were   shown   as 
            



               obstructing the work of laying of lines.  According to the learned 

               counsel, these petitioners' names have been added in the final 





               order underSection 16, though no notice of the  transmission 

               company's   application   underSection   16for   removal   of 

               obstruction was served on these petitioners.  The learned Addl.G. P. is not in a position to point out if, in fact, the notices were 

               issued to these petitioners and these petitioners were heard.  In83/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                                   wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               the   circumstances,   we   direct   that   the   Collector,   Wardha   shall 




                                                                                  
               issue  notice  to the petitioners in the  writ petitions  mentioned 




                                                         
               hereinabove and pass an appropriate orders underSection  16and till such orders are passed, the transmission company shall 




                                                        
               not carry on any work in the lands of these petitioners.PERMISSION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY :32.ig Mr.   Mandlekar,   the   learned   counsel   for   the 
                         
               petitioners, submitted that though the transmission company is 

               laying   lines   in   lands   of   local   authorities,   which   are   subject 
               


               matter   of   Writ   Petition   Nos.   5811/2011,   5812/2011   and 
            



               5813/2011,   no   permission   of   the   local   authority   has   been 

               obtained by the transmission company as required bysection 10(c) and 12 of theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885.  We find that the 

               local authority has not made any such grievance. It would be for 

               the local authority to raise this issue, if aggrieved thereby, before 





               the authorities.84/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                                                wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc33.            In   the   result,   there  is  no  merit   in  these   petitions, 




                                                                                               
                        which are hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim order, if 




                                                                      
                        any, stands vacated.  No order as to costs.34.            In view of the dismissal of the main petitions, all the 

                        Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed as such.[PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]                             [S.A. BOBDE, J.]35.            At this stage, Mr. Joshi and Mr. Mandlekar, learned 





                        counsel for the petitioners, pray for stay of the judgment of this 

                        Court and for a direction to the respondents to maintain  status  





                        quo.     Having   regard   to   the   circumstances   of   the   case   and   in 

                        particular   the   fact   that   the   project   involves   laying   down   of85/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::Pandit                                             wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc



               electric lines which is essential for the State and having further 




                                                                            
               regard to the fact that the project has already been held up since 




                                                   
               June-2011, we are not inclined to grant directions as prayed for.The prayer is rejected.Certified copy expedited.[PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]     
                         ig                                  [S.A. BOBDE, J.]86/86::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:20:49 :::