Court affirms statutory powers under Electricity and Telegraph Acts; imposes costs on petitioners for meritless litigation.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the alignment of a high-tension transmission line for the second circuit stringing of the 132 KV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line. The petitions, filed by Daulat Ram Engineering Services Ltd. and others, and Adeel Siddiqui and others, sought to halt the project citing lack of landowner consent and alleged arbitrary rejection of an alternative alignment.
The bench, comprising Mr. Vivek Rusia, A.C.J., and Pradeep Mittal, J., upheld the exercise of powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in conjunction with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The court clarified that once these statutory powers are validly invoked, the requirement for landowner consent under Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, stands excluded.
The court emphasized that judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to examining legality and arbitrariness, not substituting technical evaluations made by specialized authorities. The court noted that the technical expert team had rejected the petitioners’ proposed alignment due to safety concerns, as it violated pipeline clearance regulations.
Additionally, the court addressed the issue of compensation for land affected by the transmission line, directing petitioners to pursue claims under Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
The judgment also highlighted the petitioners' failure to disclose related legal proceedings and their delay in approaching the court, which independently justified the refusal of relief. Consequently, the court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on each petitioner for filing writ petitions without merit and causing losses to the respondents.
This decision reinforces the statutory framework governing the placement of transmission lines and underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention in technical matters of public utility projects.
Bottom Line:
The powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 exclude the requirement of landowner consent under Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Judicial scrutiny of technical decisions involving alignment of high-tension transmission lines is limited under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s):
Electricity Act, 2003 (Sections 67, 164), Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Sections 10, 16), Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (Rule 3), Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 226)
