The main legal point established in the judgment is that a 'prima facie case' alone is not sufficient for the grant of an interim order, and the necessity of obtaining approval under the Electricity Act for the installation of transmission lines, particularly the distinction between dedicated transmission lines and overhead lines.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2 have focused the instant Writ Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 10.06.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16620 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16620 of 2015 in paragraphs 11 and 12 had observed as under:

“11. In the case on hand, it is the specific case of the petitioners that installation of transmission lines is in complete disregard to the statutory provisions and no approval from the appropriate Government has been obtained. Photographs have also been produced along with the typed set of documents which would disclose that huge pits have been dug resulting in water storage in the pits. This Court, taking into consideration of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are doing agricultural operations and on account of the acts of the respondents 2 and 4, their livelihood are likely to be affected, is of the view that a prima facie case is made out for grant of interim orders. The present position is that earth has been dug and poles/pylon towers are yet to be erected.

12. In the result, there shall be an order of Status Quo as exists today till 14.07.2015 only with regard to removal of earth and erection of poles/towers in respect of lands owned by the petitioners alone.”

3. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 10.06.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16620 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Learned Advocate General appearing for the Appellants submits that Writ Petition filed by the Respondents 1 to 12/Writ Petitioners is barred by the Principles of Constructive Res-judicata, as all the issues raised in the present W.P.No.16620 of 2015 were raised before the National Green Tribunal (South Zone) at Chennai, this Court, as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. The Learned Advocate General for the Appellants urges before this Court that National Green Tribunal, Chennai as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the case of similar petitioners on the very same issues and in reality, the applicant before the National Green Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had canvassed the case of all the villagers as an agriculturist, social worker, ex councillor, ex-president and his case was cemented on the representations which was signed by the Writ Petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 11 in the above Writ Petition.

5. Advancing his argument, the Learned Advocate General emphatically submits that the plea of approval under Section 68 of the Electricity Act 2003, was specifically considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even before the National Green Tribunal, it was not only environmental issues but other issues including the approval under Section 68 of the Electricity Act 2003 were raised and considered.

6. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Advocate General appearing for the Appellants projects an argument that the Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2 do have the approval in terms of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in any case, approval under Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is required only for an overhead line but not in respect of the dedicated transmission line as held by this Court in W.P.Nos.22967, 23243 to 23246 of 2011 and W.P.No.16799 of 2013.

7. The Learned Advocate General categorically contends that in view of the approval in terms of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no notice or consent of the owner/occupier of any land is required for erection of towers.

8. At this stage, the Learned Advocate General adverts to the Rule (3)(4) of the Works of Lisencees Rule, 2006 which clearly enjoins that nothing contained in Rule 3 shall affect the power conferred upon any licensees under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

9. The Learned Advocate General submits that in fact, the public notice in regard to the route of erection of towers