Even a protest can be termed as objection.

The writ petitioners are owners of properties. They pray that a writ of mandamus be issued forbearing the respondent/Power Grid Corporation from erecting pillars or posts or transmission towers in their respective lands for the purpose of drawing Overhead High Tension Power Supply Lines. Writ Petition No.32374 of 2006 is for consideration of the petitioners representation before proceeding to erect such post or pillar or tower in respect of their land.

.2. Two projects are involved in these writ petitions. One relates to carrying out Reconnaissance, Preliminary Survey, Detailed Survey, Check Survey and Contouring at Tower Locations for 400 KV D/C LILO Line from existing 400 KV S/C Kolar -Sriperumbudur Line to New Sub-Station at Kalivandapattu (Melakottaiyur) and the other relates to the construction of Udumalpet to Arasur 400 KV D/C Power Transmission Line comprising 195 Towers with a length of 65 kilometers, connecting Udumalpet 400 KV Sub-Station to Arasur 400 KV Sub-Station. The Power Grid Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has been entrusted with the above works under schemes duly approved by the Government of India for providing quality power at large with greater reliability, particularly to the agricultural, residential and commercial establishments in the State of Tamil Nadu in general and the villages of Udumalpet and Arasur in particular, which in turn will be a big boost to the industrial and agricultural growth of the State.

3. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that the statutory provisions were ignored by the Corporation while installing the transmission towers across their respective lands; that the entry by the Corporation into their private property is without authority; that there are alternative lands which are available, which can be used for the purpose; that the erection of these towers is to the detriment of the petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; and that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to putforth their objections.

4. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy and Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners made their submissions on facts and in addition, they pointed out that the licensee namely the Corporation cannot exercise its power except in accordance with the provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Electricity Act, 2003. It was pointed out that the Indian Telegraph Act as well as the Works of Licensees Rules (Rules in short) require that permission should be obtained by the licensee from the District Magistrate when there is resistance/obstruction to the erection of the towers or carrying out the works etc., as the case may be.

.5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that this project is a very ambitious project where huge expenditure of money is involved and that there cannot be any deviation from the actual layout of the project at the instance of the petitioners, since the project has been undertaken after due consideration of various factors, which includes the route particulars, the environmental impact, construction problems, availability of labour, infrastructural issues, etc. and there cannot be any detour or deviation merely because one person finds it inconvenient to have the transmission towers installed across his land. The learned counsel also produced photographs and submitted that the height and width of the transmission towers would allow tractors to easily pass underneath those towers and there would be, if at all, minimal interference with agricultural operations; there are no dwelling houses in the lands which are involved in these writ petitions and when the Electricity Act does not contemplate prior notice, no person can complain of want of opportunity. The learned counsel further submitted that it is futile to rely on the provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules