Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
K. Subrahmanyam - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7793 of 2021
Decided On : 03-05-2021
ELECTRICITY ACT - WORKS OF LICENSEES RULES - LAYING OF TRANSMISSION LINES - OBJECTION BY LANDOWNER - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED - SECTION 164 OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - RULE 3 OF ANDHRA PRADESH WORKS OF LICENSEES RULES, 2007 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, landowners, objected to the laying of transmission lines through their land by the respondents, a power company. The petitioners contended that the respondents were required to obtain permission from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government, as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that they were not required to obtain such permission as they had invoked the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which conferred upon them the powers of a telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondents were not required to obtain permission from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government, as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, as they had invoked the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which was an exception to the general procedure contained in Rule 3. The court further held that the act of the respondents in proposing to lay overhead lines and erect towers in terms of Sections 164, 167, and 168 of the Electricity Act, 2003, subject to passing an order by the appropriate Government, could not be faulted.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were required to obtain permission from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government, as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, to lay transmission lines through the petitioners' land. 2. Whether the respondents could invoke the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to lay transmission lines without obtaining such permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles of law in reaching its decision: 1. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, confers upon the appropriate Government the power to confer upon any public officer, licensee, or other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity, the powers of a telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for the purpose of placing electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity. 2. Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, prescribes the procedure to be followed by a licensee while undertaking works in accordance with Section 67(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 3. The powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, are an exception to the general procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, holding that the respondents were not required to obtain permission from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government, as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, as they had invoked the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
JUDGMENT
M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
2. The 1st petitioner is the owner of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac. 5.60 cents, situated in Sy.No. 368 and in various survey numbers of Kuchivaripalli Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. The 2nd petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the 1st petitioner is the owner of the agriculture land situated in Sy.No. 369 to an extent of Ac. 9.58 cents of Kuchivaripalli Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. In order to develop the said land, the 1st petitioner made an application to the competent authority to convert his land from agriculture to non-agriculture. The competent authority i.e Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, asked the 1st petitioner to pay conversion fees. Accordingly, he paid the fee and the land was converted into non-agriculture, petitioners intended to develop the said land. While so, the 5th respondent proposed to lay the transmission line from 220 KV SS-Rajampeta to 132 KV SS C.Orampadu, through the land of the 1st petitioner and tag the lines, when the 1st petitioner objected the proposed action of the respondents, the 5th respondent has issued notice dated 01.03.2021 to the 1st petitioner under Section 68 and 164 of Electricity Act, 2003. It is specifically contended that the highhanded act of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules') rules framed by the 1st respondent through G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 27.02.2007, which reads as:
(a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, where over or where under any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land;
(b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support.
(2) Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other office authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works.
(3) Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorized may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.
(4) When making an order under sub rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
