SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR, J.

1. We shall first take up LPA No. 1132 of 2010, preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein grievance has been raised with respect to the judgment dated 17-5-2010, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 6993 of 2010 (Ram Naresh Singh and another v. Power Grid Corporation), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the appellants have been denied permission to install transmission towers on the lands of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (the writ petitioners) on the ground of failurp on the part of the appellants to follow the prescribed procedure. The writ petition has been disposed of with the direction that"..........Power Grid Corporation is restrained from entering upon private property without full due compliance of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006, which is mandatory in nature." Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the present proceeding.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are owners of separate plots of land, and are independent of each other. They had joined the writ petition in their independent capacity making a common cause. The appellants are engaged in the statutory duty and function of transmission and distribution of electricity throughout the country. In exercise of powers conferred by the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 2003 Act), the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) framed thereunder, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 1885 Act), the appellants attempted to install transmission towers on the lands owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to transmit electricity. The appellants are licensee within the meaning of section 14 read with section 2 (39) of 2003 Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of 2003 Act, the appropriate Government has authorised the appellants to exercise powers under Part III of 1885 Act, pursuant to which they marked places on the land for erecting pillars and foundations to support extra High Voltage Electric transmission towers. The land holders (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) objected to the same leading to the writ petition, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that there has not been full compliance of 2006 Rules. However, liberty has been granted to the appellants to take steps as per the prescribed procedure. The learned single Judge held that the appellants have not, inter alia, followed the procedure prescribed by rule 3 of the Rules which mandates that if prior consent of the owner of the land has not been obtained, the appellants were obliged to apply to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police. The impugned action has, therefore, been set aside with the liberty to follow the prescribed procedure.

3. While assailing the validity of the order of the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the writ petitioners) have no enforceable right, because of the unrestricted powers vested in it by the said order dated 24-12-2003, to install transmission towers. He submits in the same vein that the appellants by the impugned action did not violate any legal or constitutional right of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, because it does not amount to acquisition or requisition of their lands and they obtained only the right or used while the right, title, and interest of the same continues with the owners of the land. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 3 (4) of the Rules, applicability of sub-rules (1) to (3) of Rule 3 is completely obviated, a situation brought about by virtue of the powers conferred on the appellants by the order of the Govt. of India dated 24-12-2003 in terms of Section 1