ORDER :

M. Ganga Rao, J.

1. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh through its officials filed this writ petition questioning the order, dated 30.6.2018, passed in OP No. 51 of 2017 by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad, [for short, 'the Commission'] wherein and whereby the Commission allowed the above OP filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein seeking compensation and damages for laying the high tension electrical lines across their lands in Sy. No. 41/1 of Guntupalli, Krishna District, mainly contending that the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the said O.P.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents 2 & 3 herein filed the above OP before the Commission against the petitioners herein and respondents 4 to 6 herein, under Rule 13(1)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensee Rules, 2007 read with Section 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 [for short, 'the Act'], seeking a direction to the Collector and District Magistrate-4th respondent herein to fix the compensation for loss of crop, loss of land value with interest from 3.2.2009, the date of construction of towers and lines as part of Nunna to Srisailam, VTPS/LILO, 400 KV Double Circuit High Tension Towers and lines over an extent of Ac. 0.31 cents of land situated in Sy. No. 41/1 of Guntupalli, Krishna District, and to award monthly remuneration to both the respondents 2 & 3 herein from 13.3.2019, towards loss of livelihood, to conduct an enquiry into suppression of the A.P. Works of Licensee Rules, 2007 [for short, 'the Rules'] by the respondents 5 & 6 herein fixing personal liability on them for damages and other consequences etcetera. On receipt of the notice from the Commission, the A.P. Transco filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of OP No. 51 of 2017 contending that the respondents 2 & 3 herein are not entitled to any compensation or damages and prayed to dismiss the O.P. However, the Commission allowed the O.P. on 30.6.2018 mainly directing the Collector and District Magistrate-4th respondent herein to fix the amount of compensation or of an annual rent or of both which should be paid by the licensee, i.e., Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited to the owner/occupier of the land, i.e., the petitioners therein with other directions. Being aggrieved by the said order as being arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 1st petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and it is fully owned by the 1st respondent-Government. It is engaged in the business of transmission of power and it is a licensee within the meaning of Section 2(39) of the Act. The petitioner obtained license to transmit electricity as a transmission licensee under Section 14 of the said Act. The 1st petitioner has formulated a scheme for laying of two numbers double circuit lines for Line-In and Line-Out (LILO) of Nunna-Srisailam/Narasaraopeta 400 KV DC line to VTPS (Stage-TV) and it was notified in the A.P. Gazette bearing No. 211, dated 17.7.2007. The said scheme was formulated for reduction of Extra High Tension (EHT) losses, improvement of voltage profiles and to meet the additional load demand of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. By the said notification, objections were invited from any person interested and they can file their objections before the Chief Engineer, Construction, 400 KV within two months from the date of publication of the notification. The notification was published in two daily newspapers, i.e., Hindu and Vaartha on 29.5.2007 and 30.5.2007 respectively. But no objections were received from anybody including the respondents 2 & 3 herein to the said notification. The execution of the sc