1. The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of the land to an extent of 7,647 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.51/5 of Jaggarajupeta, Visakhapatnam District having purchased the same in the year 2007 under a registered sale deed. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in proposing to lay the basement for erecting electrical lines in the petitioner’s property, he had earlier filed W.P.No.15497 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 18.7.2008 granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate alternative remedy before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.793 of 2008. Having regard to the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority vide memo dated 11.9.2008 had advised AP TRANSCO to go for underground cabling, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 9.11.2009 disposed of the said Writ Appeal granting liberty to the appellant/the petitioner herein to make an appropriate representation to the AP TRANSCO to consider the proposal for underground cabling. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.12.2009 requesting the respondents 2 to 4 to go for underground cabling or in the alternative to pay compensation as per prevailing market rate. In response to the same, the 1st respondent – The Executive Engineer, TLC Division, AP TRANSCO - by letter dated 8.2.2010 informed the petitioner that the request of the petitioner to have underground cabling was not feasible and that the AP TRANSCO was proceeding with the overhead line works. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned action of the respondents is liable to be declared as arbitrary and illegal since the same is in violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also Indian Telegraph Act, 1910.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that laying of electricity supply line without the consent of local authority or of the owner or occupier of the land was impermissible under law.

3. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record, including the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.

4. The powers of the authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 for erection of poles and transmission lines on private land was considered by this Court in detail in G.V.S. RAMA KRISHNA v. A.P. TRANSCO, HYDERABAD (AIR 2009 (AP) 158 = 2009 (3) ALD 343) and it was held that Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the A. P. TRANSCO to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric posts for the transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation if any damage was caused by reason of placing of such electric supply lines.

5. It is to be noticed that Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers a licensee to carry out works to lay down and place electric lines, electrical plant and other works. Section 67 (2) further provides that the appropriate Government may, by rules made by it, specify the cases and circumstances in which the consent in writing of the appropriate government, local authority, owner or occupier as the case may be shall be required for carrying out the said work.

6. While observing that no such rules were made by the appropriate Government in exercise of rule making power under Section 67 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, this Court in G.V.S. RAMA KRISHNA’S case (1 supra) held that in terms of the Repeal and Savings clause under Section 185 (2) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions contained in Sections 12 to 18 of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910 continue to govern the field and consequently in the absence of an order under Secti