The installation of high tension transmission lines over private property is governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the transmission licensee is obligated to do as little damage as possible and pay full compensation for any damage sustained by the property owner.

JUDGMENT :

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :

1. The writ petition, along with all connected applications, is taken up for hearing.

2. The petitioner claims that the petitioner has a mango orchard, where rare species of mangoes are grown.

3. It is submitted that due to high voltage transmission line taken by the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (WBSETCL), the production of such mango is being adversely affected, thereby hampering the livelihood of the petitioner and causing detriment to the mango orchard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has objected at all relevant points of time in the year, 2016, when the proposal of drawing high tension transmission line over the said orchard was mooted. The petitioner, it is argued, wrote several representations, but to no effect. Although a survey was held, it is submitted that, in blatant violation of the petitioner’s right to conserve the rare mangoes grown in his orchard, the high tension line was ultimately installed. The petitioner thereafter sought for shifting of the said lines to some alternative route, to which the respondent- Authorities responded in the negative. The matter came up to this court in a previous round of litigation, when a co-ordinate Bench directed the concerned District Magistrate (DM) to decide the issue. The DM, however, turned down the contention of the petitioner by the impugned order, thus, necessitating the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on several print-outs, purportedly from different websites, to show that high tension electricity transmission lines have an adverse impact on vegetation in general and fruit orchards in particular.

6. A communication dated December 7, 2018 issued by the Department of Food Processing Industries and Horticulture of the Government has also been relied on by the petitioner to argue that the proposed high tension line was destined to be fatal to the trees in the mango orchard maintained by the petitioner. It is submitted that, being authored by an expert body of the State Government, the said communication ought to have been considered by the Magistrate.

7. Initially, when a writ petition was filed to that effect, the matter was relegated to the DM, upon a consideration of which the DM had ultimately passed the impugned order turning down the request of the petitioner for shifting of such line. It is argued that the said order is vitiated on several grounds. It is submitted that the alleged documentary evidence led by the respondents before the DM was never served on the petitioner. Non-disclosure of such documents, it is argued, is in gross violation of natural justice.

8. The writ petitioner had submitted several documents during hearing to establish the harmful effects of the proposed high tension line on the orchard which were in the nature of expert’s opinions. However, those were summarily discarded in an arbitrary manner on the plea that those were not endorsed by Government authorities.

9. The DM made an observation, it is argued, that there is no guideline regarding regulation of high voltage electricity lines above fruit orchards, losing sight of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Sub-rule (1)(a) of the same clearly lays down that a licensee may carry out works of placement of any electricity supply line over any land with the prior consent of the owner or occupier. The first proviso to Rule 3(1) provides a mechanism for redressal of the grievances and/or for consideration of the objections raised by a land owner against proposed installation of electricity line. The said provisions were given a go-by while observing that there were no existing guidelines.

10. The said provisions, in Rule 3(2), also provide for compensation to the affected persons, it is argued.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners alleges that the height of the bottom connector has been kept precariously close to the tree-to