The main legal point established in the judgment is that a transmission licensee, constituted as a Telegraph Authority, has the statutory power to determine compensation for laying transmission lines under section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and any challenge to the compensation must be raised before the District Judge under section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act.

JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 finally. None appears for the respondent No. 5-MERC though served as per the endorsement in the farad-sheet dated 06/12/2023.

3. On 06/12/2023, the following position was recorded.

3.1 The petition questions order dated 05/09/2018 (Page 153) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sindkhedraja exercising powers under the GR dated 27/01/2017 (Page 193) whereby compensation for the use of the land of the respondent No. 4 for the purpose of laying the electricity transmission line has been determined.

3.2. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned SDO did not have the jurisdiction to do so for the reason that the petitioner has been constituted as a Telegraph Authority as defined in section 2(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as “Telegraph Act”) and therefore was alone empowered and authorized to determine the compensation for laying down the line in exercise of the power under section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act challenge to which could only be laid before the District Judge under section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. He further contends that the public notice dated 14/10/2010 indicates that the petitioner has been appointed as a licensee under Licence No. 1/2010 by the Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) to establish and operate the transmission lines, substations, bays and equipment and related infrastructure for several transmission lines one of them being Akola-II Aurangabad 765 in which the field of the respondent No. 4 falls (Page 29). He further invites my attention to the order dated 13/06/2011 (Page 41) by which in exercise of the powers conferred under section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003 and section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the petitioner/licensee has been conferred the powers of the Telegraph Authority as defined under the Telegraph Act and therefore, would be the Authority to determine the compensation for the laying of the electric line under section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act. It is therefore, contended that since in exercise of the power under section 164 of the Electricity Act, the petitioner/licensee has been constituted as a Telegraph Authority, it is only the petitioner/licensee who would have the power, as flowing from section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act to determine the compensation and no other authority for the transmission line indicated above on account of which the impugned order passed by the SDO claiming to have jurisdiction in light of the GR dated 01/11/2010, or for that matter the GR dated 31/05/2017 (Page 193) would be without jurisdiction. It is contended that all other general circulars issued by the State cannot override the constitution of the petitioner/licensee as an appropriate Authority for the particular section where the transmission line has been directed to be erected. He further invites my attention in this context to the Maharashtra Electricity Work of Licensee Rules, 2012 (for short “MEWL Rules” hereinafter) in which by virtue of Rule 3(4) thereof an exception has been made by providing that nothing contained in this Rule, shall affect the powers conferred upon the licensee under section.164 of the Electricity Act. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that since the SDO, Sindkhedraja was not conferred any jurisdiction or authority to act as a Telegraph Authority for the above stated stretch of the transmission line, any power which may have been conferred upon him by a general circular, would not take away the authority of the petitioner/ licensee as available to it under section.10(d) of the Telegraph Act on account of which the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

3.3. Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, while supporting the impugned order, sub