ORDER :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited is a Government of India Enterprise. It is engaged in promoting renewable energy. It invited bits for setting up 300 megawatt wind power project at Mulanoor, Dharapuram, Tirupur. M/s. Sprng Energy Private Limited participated in the bidding and became the successful bidder. A letter of award dated 01.06.2018 was issued in its favour with the condition that the execution of project is to be done by the project Company floated in this regard, namely, M/s. Sprng Renewable Energy Private Limited. A time line has been imposed in the letter of award for the execution of the project.

3. M/s. Sprng Renewable Energy Private Limited entered into contract with M/s. Nordex India Private Limited. The said Nordex India Private Limited, in turn, entered into sub-contract with the writ petitioner for the construction and installation of towers and drawing of lines on the project route. For carrying out the said work, the writ petitioner entered into Right of Way agreements with the various land owners. It appears that the petitioner had completed installation of most of the transmission towers and only a very few are remaining to be installed. The petitioner is unable to complete the work on account of resistance from a handful of the land owners. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.03.2020 to the District Collector, Karur seeking permission and protection to execute the work. However, the District Collector, Karur, by the impugned order dated 02.04.2020 rejected the petitioner's request. Questioning the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be faulted because the petitioner was not conferred with the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. I sustain this objection. But I cannot stop with that. While an order passed by a public authority has to be tested based on the reasons set out therein and cannot be improved upon later, a court of law is duty bound to take note of the subsequent developments. It is from this duty that the power to mould the relief springs.

6. In the case on hand, the Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India has issued a notification bearing F. No. CEA-PS-12-14(21)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, conferring all the powers of the telegraph authority to M/s. Sprng Renewable Energy Private Limited for implementing the project. Therefore, even while sustaining the order impugned in the writ petition, I grant leave to the stakeholders to move the first respondent and I mandate the first respondent to positively exercise his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

7. I could have disposed of all these writ petitions with the aforesaid liberty and direction without further ado. But then, this case is inextricably linked to a batch of writ petitions that were filed by the various land owners. When the petitioner proposed to lay electric poles and towers and draw transmission lines, the said land owners resisted and obstructed. They contended that the writ petitioner cannot enter their lands unless he was expressly permitted to do so by the District Magistrate, Karur under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. I upheld the said stand and allowed their writ petitions. Therefore, I deem it necessary to reiterate the legal position. This exercise has become necessary as the petitioner's counsel contended that the District Magistrate is obliged to permit the petitioner to proceed with the works because of the issuance of the notification under Section 164 of the El