1. The petitioner is the owner of the property to an extent of 8 acres and 40 cents comprised in Survey No. 17/2B, Pudupakkam Village, Chengulpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The said land has been purchased for setting up of a joint venture with the Italian company and it is in the process. When things stood so, the respondents entered into the property for the purpose of erecting HT lines in the petitioner's property. Immediately, the petitioner objected the attempt of the respondents by making a representation to the Chairman directly on 03.10.2015 and also sent a representation through post. In spite of that, without following the procedure, the respondents are attempting to erect a tower. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court with this Writ Petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner made objection, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure adopted in Indian Electricity Act and Indian Telegraph Act. However, without following the procedure, the respondents are proceeding with the erection. The learned Counsel referred to the rules framed thereunder, namely "The Works of Licensees Rules, 2006" and a specific reference has been made to Rule 3 to insist upon the point that the licensees, namely, respondents shall obtain permission by writing to District Magistrate. Without obtaining any permission, the respondents are proceeding with the erection of towers. Therefore, the petitioner sought for a direction as stated above.

3. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that only one tower has been erected and there is no proposal to shift the existing line from the opposite side to the petitioner's property and it is only a new line which is being laid and already tower has been erected and sinking process has to be done.

4. When this Court wanted to know whether any permission has been obtained from the owner, the learned Standing Counsel would refer Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and submit that only the land owner has to approach the authorities for removal of the towers erected.

5. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 states that if any objection is received, it is the bounden duty of the authorities, namely, respondents to get permission from the District Magistrate and number of judgments have been given by this Court. It is a settled law.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly relied upon Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. The same is extracted hereunder:-

3. Licensee to carry out works: (I) A licensee may:-

(a) Carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works, in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, where-over or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land.

(b) Fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support.

Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works.

Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorised may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.

(2) When making an order under sub-rule (1), the District Magist