The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Collector has no authority to alter the route for transmission lines when experts have already determined the best route for the project.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Letter No. Na.Ka.No.10390/2022/B2 dated 28.02.2023 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principal of natural justice and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the original electrical line plan.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the Letter of the 1st respondent dated 28.02.2023 bearing Na.Ka.No.10390/2022/B2 and to consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the original electrical line plan.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he claims to be the owner of the land comprised in S.Nos.1/1 & 1/6, situated at Mummudi Village, Salem District, through which the 2nd respondent is implementing the Erection of the HT Towers and stringing Power Lines for 110KW Power Transmission Project, for the purpose of electrification of Salem-Virudachalam Railway line. As per the original Scheme, the HT Towers and the Power lines were to pass through the lands of an Education Trust situated adjacent to the petitioner's land, for which the foundation has been laid and the work had been commenced, however, the said foundation was removed and subsequently the scheme was changed by the 2nd respondent, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made an objection for erection of High Tension Towers and Power Lines on the petitioner's lands. Thereafter, the 1st respondent conducted a meeting on 28.02.2023, by issuing notice dated 19.01.2023 to all the owners of Mummudi Village, calling to participate in the grievance meeting with regard to the acquisition of lands for electrification of the Salem- Virudhachalam Railway Line and construction and setting up of 110 KW substation along with tower on specific lands. However, without considering the objections made by the petitioner and other land owners, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 28.02.2023, directing the 2nd respondent to put up high Tension Towers and stringing Power Lines abutting the petitioner's lands. Challenging the same, the present Writ petition is filed.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the original scheme, the HT Towers and the Power Lines were to pass through the lands owned by an Education Trust, adjacent to the petitioner's land, however, subsequently, the respondents purposely changed the same in order to facilitate the Education Trust and to safeguard the lands of politically sound and influential persons and therefore, the 1st respondent/ District Collector decided to set up the High Tension Towers in the lands abutting the petitioner's land, which is not sustainable. Further, it is evident even from the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd & 3rd respondents that, this Hon'ble Court, time and again, has defined the role and power of the District Collector under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, wherein it is held that, the District Collector has got no power to go into the merits of the case and find out whether the alignment proposed is correct or not and whether there is any possibility of realignment and the power is only restricted to remove the obstruction or resistance in the completion of the project. While so, in the present case on hand, the District Collector, who is not an expert, conducted an enquiry and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Athur to conduct a filed inspection and to submit a report with regard to the feasibility of an alternative route.

4. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that, on 03.10.2022, an objection was submitted by the answering respondent/ Electricity board for the proposal of the alternative route and it was requested to grant permission to carry on with the project in the approved route, however, the same was not considered either by the 1st respondent or by the Revenue Divisional Offi