The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the District Collector to consider objections and pass orders under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, emphasizing the public interest in the project and the time-bound nature of the project.

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to his order in D.Dis.No.15 of 2007 dated 23.05.2007, quash the same and consequently forbear the second respondent from erecting any pillar or post for the purpose of transmission of high tension power over the lands in S.Nos.58/1, 2 and 3, 60/2 to 6, 61/1 to 5, 63/2, 64 to 68, 69/1, 2 and 3 and 70/1 and 2, 77/1A, 78, 79, 80/1 and 2 and 155/1 and 2 of an extent of 22.04 acres and S.Nos.86, 97/1 and 2, 100, 101, 103 to 106, 107/1, 2 and 3, 108, 118/1, 2 and 3, 119, 120/1 and 4, 121/1, 124, 125/1 and 2, 126, 127, 128/2, 129, 130, 142/1 and 2, 144 Part, 146, 147/1 to 5, 148/1 to 4 of an extent of 288. ½ acres in 79, Gudalur Village within Maraimalai Nagar Town Panchayat, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a businessman engaged in developing layouts of house sites by acquiring various parcels of land from various owners, making them contiguous and forming layouts consisting of several housing plots after providing open space, public roads, culverts, etc. and selling the same to various persons desirous of purchasing house sites. While so, he developed a layout of house sites over an extent of 288. 1/2 acres of land in various survey nos. of Gudalur Vilalge, Chingelput Taluk, Kancheepuram District falling within the Maraimalai Nagar Town Panchayat and submitted necessary applications to the Maraimalai Nagar Town Panchayat which was duly approved under proceedings dated 02.05.2007. He remitted a sum of Rs.24,60,000/- towards approval charges and developmental charges and the layout plan was approved vide a resolution dated 30.04.2007. The petitioner started selling house plots to various persons and still holds several plots readily available for sale and he is responsible to ensure that the various purchasers of the respective plots derive full benefit out of their purchase and that they are not deprived of any of their rights by any action by any person against the title and possession of the property. That being the position, some pits were dug in his lands by the agents of second respondent Corporation and hence, he was was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P. No.49172 of 2006 seeking a writ of mandamus which was disposed of in the following terms:

“..The Power Grid Corporation shall, as early as it deems fit, approach the District Magistrate concerned in each case for permission to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners in each case and the said District Magistrate shall consider the objections and pass orders in accordance with the provisions which have been extracted above.”

3. Pursuant to the said order, based on a requisition letter dated 25.01.2007 from the Chief Manager of the second respondent, the first respondent, by a notice dated 05.02.2007, called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 19.02.2007 to put forth his objections, in respect of exercise of powers of Telegraph authority under Section 16

(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that if the power line towers are erected in the approved layout, it will severely affect various purchasers and himself as there are several unsold plots and since 40 ft. on both sides of the power line has to be kept vacant, 700 x 33 metres of land will be rendered useless. Subsequently, though the relevant sale deeds and layout approvals were submitted for consideration of the first respondent, by proceedings dated 23.05.2007, the first respondent overruled the petitioner’s objections stating that his reasons are purely out of commercial interest and the proposed park area has no commercial value to him as a promoter and that the alignment suggested by him was not technically feasible. Aggrieved over the said order, this Writ Petition has been filed on the grounds that:

a. the impugned order of