Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ravi V Hosmani, J.
Emmanuel Vincent D'sa, S/O Ignatius D'sa And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India, Rep By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Power Government Of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12131 of 2024 (GM-KEB)
Decided On : 16-09-2025
For the Petitioner:Sri Shridhar Prabhu, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Srinivas V. Raghavan, Sr. Counsel For, Sri Rajeshwara P.N., Advocate, Sri Rajashekar S., Advocate, Smt.Vaheeda, Aga, Sri John Thomas, Advocate
Challenging prior authorizations under the Electricity Act requires adherence to due process; res judicata applies if claims were previously adjudicated.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 68 and Section 164 - The petitioners challenge the Central Electricity Authority's decisions regarding prior approval for transmission line construction. Court found the approval arbitrary, without proper process and in violation of natural justice principles. Past decisions ruled against petitioners' claims, rendering current challenges res judicata. (Paras 1-29)
(B) Natural Justice - Fair hearing principles must be upheld when granting approvals that affect individuals' property rights. In this case, the statutory process was not followed, resulting in an arbitrary decision by authorities. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash the Central Electricity Authority's approval for laying a transmission line across their lands, arguing that proper procedures were not followed and prior approvals were arbitrary and without application of mind. They claimed violations of their rights under the Constitution, particularly concerning property rights. (Paras 1-9)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld prior rulings that denied the same claims, prevailing under the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that the petitioners had previously claimed the same issues in other cases. (Paras 24, 29)
Issues: The main issues included whether the approval process under the Electricity Act was adhered to, and if the current writ petition was barred by principles of res judicata given the prior dismissal of similar claims. (Paras 23-28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the petitions' challenges were repetitious, had been adequately addressed in earlier rulings, and therefore could not form the basis for new claims when no new facts were presented. (Paras 25-26)
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Ravi V Hosmani, J.
This writ petition is filed for following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the prior approval granted by the 2nd respondent Central Electricity Authority, under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , under File No. CEA-PS-12-14(20)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division dated 18.01.2019, granting prior approval for laying of Udupi (UPCL) Kasargode 400 kV Quad DIC transmission line, at ANNEXURE -A, is arbitrary, unreasonable, passed without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India and quash the same;
b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the Notification No. F. No. CEA-PS-12-14(21)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division dated 31st August 2021 and published in the Gazette of India dated 14th October 2021, issued by the 2nd respondent Central Electricity Authority, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , at ANNEXURE -B, is without authority of law, arbitrary, unreasonable, passed without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India and quash the same;
c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the Notices, bearing UKIL/2023-2024/20240122/KATL/com/ dated 31.01.2024 issued Dearing UKIL/5033/2004/ 20140123/RATL/COM) to the petitioners by the 3rd respondent intimating them about the placing the Udupi Kasargode Transmission line over their respective lands, at ANNEXURES -C TO C38.
d) Quash all further actions pursuant to ANNEXURES - A, B, C to C38 and also restrain the respondents from taking any further action in pursuance of prior approval granted under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , under File No. CEA-PS-12-14(20)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division granted by the 2nd respondent Central Electricity Authority, at ANNEXURE A and also under Notification No. F. No. CEA-PS-12-14(21)/1/2018-PSPA- II Division dated 31st August 2021 and published in the Gazette of India dated 14th October 2021, issued by the 2nd respondent Central Electricity Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , at ANNEXURE - B.
e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective land holdings, without authority of law.
2. Though, this matter was listed for hearing on Memo for dismissal of writ petition, it was taken up for disposal with consent of learned counsel.
3. Sri Shridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted, petitioners were agriculturists and owners of respective lands in Arala, Panjikallu, Bantwala Kasaba and Karpe villages of Bantwala Taluk, wherein they had grown arecanut, coconut and in some cases rubber plantations etc. for their livelihood. It was submitted, respondent no.1 was Ministry performing functions of Central Government under the Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act', for short), while respondent no.2 was Central Electricity Authority (CEA) constituted under Section 3 (1) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, since repealed and substituted with Section 70 of Act. And, Respondent no.3 was a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 2013, as a Project Specific Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for implementation of Udupi - Kasaragod 400 KV Quad Double Circuit Inter-State Transmission Line ('Project', for short).
4. It was submitted, respondent no.8 was Company wholly owned by Government of Kerala carrying on business of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electricity in State of Kerala. It was submitted on noting power shortage in northern part of Kerala, respondent no.8, proposed drawing of 400 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Mysore in Karnataka to Kozhikode in Kerala. As,
