The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the word 'post' under Section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, applying the principle of ejusdem generis and emphasizing the purposive interpretation of statutes.

(M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants, being the writ petitioners, challenging the order of the learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief:

The respondent No.1 is the Central Transmission Utility under the Ministry of Power and is engaged in the construction and maintenance of inter-state transmission system spread across the nation. One such work has been entrusted with the respondent No.1 towards the construction of 400 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Madurai to Tuticorin under the approval of Government of India.

3. The respondent No.1 is a deemed transmission licensee in the capacity of Central Transmission Utility as envisaged under Sections 38 and 40 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Government of India notification. The respondent No.1 becomes a deemed "transmission licensee" in accordance with Section 14 of "The Electricity Act, 2003". Section 164 of "The Electricity Act, 2003" prescribes that the appropriate Government by order in writing may provide for the placing of electric lines or electrical plants for the transmission of electricity confer upon the Licensee any of the powers which the Telegraph Authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Government of India has authorised the respondent No.1 to exercise all powers prescribed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

4. A survey was conducted in respect of the project in the year 2008 followed by the check survey works during 2009. The best techno economic route alignment was finalized in the year 2009. An objection was raised by the appellants dated 18.11.2010, stating that they are involved in the manufacturing of salt and gypsum engaging 100 persons and in view of the proposed laying and erection of towers and overhead lines there is every possibility of an electro magnetic induction. Hence, it is stated in the representation that the proposed electric towers will have to be realigned to avoid the power lines crossing over the lands of the appellants.

5. A reply was given on 21.12.2010 by the respondent No.1 stating that there will not be any electro magnetic induction and the lines will cross the salt pans alone. It has been further stated that the route has been finalized meticulously taking into consideration various factors including the relevant inconvenience of the persons who are likely to be affected. Thereafter, the petitioners have come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from entering into the petitioners salt factory and erecting high tension transmission towers.

6. The learned single Judge after considering the entire case of the appellants as well as that of the respondents was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants being the writ petitioners have come forward to file this Writ Appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the definition of the word post does not include a tower and therefore, the respondent No.1 does not have the power or the authority to enter into lands of the appellants and erect such a tower. It is submitted that the proposed alignment has been changed to suit the convenience of few and therefore, the entire action is arbitrary. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are proposed to have a salt factory and in view of the proposed action the entire proposed factory would be affected. The power under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is not available to the respondent No.1 and in any case in view of the objections raised, the matter ought to have been referred to the second respondent. The property of the appellants cannot be utilized to their detriments and the proposed action in erecting the towers amounting to acqui