The larger public interest prevails over private interests, and the legislation aims to provide unobstructed access for growth and development of the country and well-being of the citizens, not for private purposes.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue any order or a direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondents in laying overhead high tension electricity lines and electric towers for a private supply of electricity across the subject property of the petitioner company and attempting to dispossess the petitioner company without its written consent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in gross violations of principles of natural justice and dehors the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Electricity Act, 2003 and rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to find an alternative route to commission the present private project of supplying electricity…..”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 engaged in the business of pharmaceuticals and it was allotted an extent of Ac.15-59 cents of site in Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh by the Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Corporation Limited and the said land was handed over to the petitioner and possession certificate was also issued to it. Besides the above extent, the petitioner purchased Ac.14.87 ½ cents of land under sale deed of the year 1983 and the same was also converted for industrial use. The petitioner came to know that the respondents approved the work of erection of 132KV high tension electric line to the respondent No.5 and electric lines are being currently erected for the purpose of private supply of electricity to the respondent No.5 and when the work was initiated to lay the electricity towers on the subject property without any prior notice, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents vide letters dated 14.08.2022 and 18.11.2022 objecting the erection of towers and overhead electric lines across the subject property of the petitioner company and further intimating that they are planning to construct R&D centre on the subject property and applied for relevant permissions from the appropriate authorities and therefore, requested the respondents to reroute the overhead electricity lines in order to avoid the occurrence of irreparable damage and injury to the petitioner company. It is the further case of the petitioner that, it was clearly stated in the said letters, which were sent by email and speed post, that no consent much less written consent was given by the petitioner company. There was no response from the respondents to the above representations. While the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the respondents would consider rerouting the erection of proposed high tension private electric line without causing any damage/disturbance to the petitioner company and its constructions plans, to its utter shock and surprise, the respondents are proceeding with the erection of towers across the subject property and they started the construction work of towers near the subject property and proposing to erect the towers across the subject property without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner company. It is the further case of the petitioner that, erection of electric towers and lines to benefit a private party cannot be done at the cost of another private party and the proposed electricity lines will directly come in the way of construction plans of the petitioner company and also cause maximum damage since the very allotment of land by APIIC for development would become redundant. In order to ensure a minimal damage, the respondents ought to have considered to re-route the proposed private electricity lines so that no party would suffer a damage and since the project is proposed to be commissioned exclusively to benefit a private party, the costs of the project would be borne by the said private party. It is the further case of the petitioner that, erecting the to