IMPORTANT POINT
There is need for unobstructed access for laying down electricity transmission lines in larger public interest as these are essential requirements for growth and development of country, economy and well-being of citizens.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The first respondent – IVP Limited is a company and owner of the non-agricultural land at village Vadavali bearing S. No. 43/32 admeasuring about 20 R Pot Kharaba 1 R and at village Mohane bearing S. No. 42/12 admeasuring about 22R 30P and S. No. 44/2 admeasuring about 50 R Pot Kharaba 3R. The first respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction with a grievance that the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (‘MSEDC’ for short), the second respondent before us, had appointed contractors who were excavating its land for construction of the electricity transmission towers without any prior approval.

3. The appellant – Century Rayon Limited, who is also a defendant in the suit, is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of chemicals and has its plant at village Mohane, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The aforesaid electricity transmission towers are being constructed on the application dated 2nd May 2016 made by the appellant to the MSEDC for Line In Line Out (LILO) on 100 KV Mohane Ambernath DC TL. Thereupon, the sanction was granted by the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd (‘MSETCL’ for short) vide letter 24th May 2017 subject to various terms and conditions including that the right to way problem for laying of line is to be sorted out by the appellant at its cost.

4. The present appeal impugns the judgment and order dated 9th January 2019 passed by the High Court of Bombay, which dismisses Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 19175 of 2018, and thereby affirms the order passed by the trial court and the first appellate court restraining the appellant and the second respondent by way of temporary injunction from “making holes for erecting poles on any part of the suit lands without following due process of law”.

5. A number of issues and contentions have been raised before us but we are not inclined to enter into a detailed discussion, for we are dealing with an interim injunction order and are inclined to grant relief to the appellant subject to certain conditions, leaving the main issues to be decided and adjudicated in the civil suit and under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘Telegraph Act’ for short) read with the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘Electricity Act’ for short).

6. There were certain lapses on the part of the MSETCL/MSEDC and the appellant, as has been noticed in the impugned order, on account of the failure to take necessary permission from the District Magistrate when there was obstruction and objection to the work of erecting the electricity transmission towers on the first respondent’s land. However, it is an accepted and admitted position that pursuant to the interim order passed by the first appellate court on 25th April 2018, the appellant had initiated appropriate proceedings through licensing authority before the District Magistrate, Thane and thereupon vide order dated 28th August 2018 necessary permission for erection of the towers and setting up transmission line has been granted subject to payment of compensation to the first respondent in terms of Section 16(1) to Section 16(4) read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. It is correct that the interim order dated 25th April 2018 was set aside by the Bombay High Court vide order dated 17th May 2018, albeit it is an accepted position that as a matter of fact the electricity transmission towers on the land of the first respondent have already been constructed. Therefore, and in a way, the MSEDC is already using the land of the first respondent. The appellant has highlighted and the MSEDC affirms that 80% of the work of laying the transmission line is already over and but for the injunction order under challenge the transmission line would have been activated and operationalised. Clearly, therefore, the balance of convenience does not justify passing of an interim injunction order in favour of the first respondent. It is also accepted that the District