The conditional power of the telegraph authority under S.10 of the Telegraph Act, the requirement for full compensation for any damage sustained, and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the right to hold property guaranteed by Art.19 (1) (f) of the Constitution were sufficient safeguards.

Headnote:
Electricity Act - Challenge to the provisions contained in S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the corresponding provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of S.51 of the Electricity Act and S.10 of the Telegraph Act, emphasizing the conditional power of the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines under, over, along, across, and posts in or upon any immovable property, and the requirement to approach the District Magistrate for an order enabling the exercise of those powers when resisted or obstructed. The court also highlighted the need for full compensation to be paid for any damage sustained by the exercise of those powers, and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the right to hold property guaranteed by Art.19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a private limited company, sought to quash a notice and declare the provisions contained in S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the corresponding provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The respondents, including the Kerala State Electricity Board, sought to draw a 11 KV line across the petitioner's property for supplying electrical energy to a fishing harbour. The main contentions raised by the petitioner were that the provisions in the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act providing for the placing of electric supply lines were discriminatory and arbitrary, and that S.51 of the Electricity Act granted arbitrary power interfering with the right to property guaranteed by the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the conditional power of the telegraph authority under S.10 of the Telegraph Act, the requirement for full compensation for any damage sustained, and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the right to hold property guaranteed by the Constitution were sufficient safeguards. The court also held that the public officer on whom powers under S.51 of the Electricity Act have been conferred must approach the District Magistrate for an order enabling the exercise of those powers when resisted or obstructed.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the provisions contained in S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the corresponding provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as ultra vires and unconstitutional, and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the right to hold property guaranteed by Art.19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditional power of the telegraph authority under S.10 of the Telegraph Act, the requirement for full compensation for any damage sustained, and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the right to hold property guaranteed by the Constitution were sufficient safeguards. The court also held that the public officer on whom powers under S.51 of the Electricity Act have been conferred must approach the District Magistrate for an order enabling the exercise of those powers when resisted or obstructed.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to approach the District Magistrate if they wished to proceed with the laying of the lines over the petitioner's property, and ordered accordingly with no costs.

Judgment :-

1. The prayers in this petition are:

(1) "to quash Ext. P1 Notice",

(2) "to declare the provisions contained in S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the corresponding provisions contained in the Indian Telegraphic (Sic) Act, 1885, as ultra vires and unconstitutional;"

(3) "to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Ext. P1" and

(4) "to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order not to enter the premises of the petitioner's company-factory or to cut and remove the improvements standing on the property or drawing the high-tension power lines across the petitioner's property;"

2. The Petitioner is a private limited company which owns about four acres of land, most of which is occupied by buildings, yards, etc. of the factory of the petitioner. It manufactures plywood and other allied products. The property is bounded on the north by the Baliapatarn river and on the south by a public road. In the south of the property owned by the petitioner, adjacent to the public road, there is one acre of vacant land; the proposal in Ext. P1 is to draw a 11 KV line across this one acre of land for the purpose of supplying electrical energy to the fishing harbour, Baliapattam.

3. The respondents are the Kerala State Electricity Board, its Assistant Engineer at Cannanore and its Junior Engineer at Baliapattam.

4. The notice, Ext. P1 was issued by the 2nd respondent Assistant Engineer. It is claimed by the respondents that by the notification Ext. P5 dated 6-1-1960 issued under S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the 2nd respondent has the same powers for the placing of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus on the property of others for the transmission of energy as that possessed by the telegraph authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, for the purpose of placing telegraph lines.

5. We shall hereafter refer to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as the Electricity Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as the Telegraph Act.

6. The main contentions raised by counsel on behalf of the petitioner are that the provisions in the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act providing for the placing of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy are unconstitutional because they are discriminatory and arbitrary, and S.51 of the Electricity Act and S.10 of the Telegraph Act have been singled out for particular attack. It is urged that the authority empowered to act under S.51 can, with unfettered discretion, choose between the powers under S.51 of the Electricity Act read with S.10 of the Telegraph Act or seek acquisition under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of the immovable property, under, over, along or across which electric supply-lines, etc. are to be placed. It is further urged that a licensee authorised under S.51 of the Electricity Act may either exercise the powers under the section or choose to exercise the powers granted to a licensee under S.12 to 16,18 and 19 of the Electricity Act.

This liberty to choose between two different procedures, one more advantageous to the owner or occupier, viz., that under the Land Acquisition Act or the one less advantageous viz., that under Ss 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act is, it is contended, discriminatory.

7. S.51 of the Electricity Act has also been challenged as granting arbitrary power or enabling the grant of arbitrary power, the exercise of which can interfere with the right to property guaranteed by Art.19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. This interference, it is said, is unreasonable and not in the interests of the general public.

8. It is further said that S.51 of the Electricity' Act itself gives no guidelines as to who should be authorised and in what circumstances he should be so authorised and has thus conferred on the State Government arbitrary power without any legislative guidance and, therefore, the section is bad for excessive delegation.

9. To deal with these contentions, it is necessary t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1969 Supreme(Ker) 210

Cases Referred (2)