SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T.ASHA, J.
M/s. Progen Renewables Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
The Power Grid Corporation - Respondent
W.P.No.2278 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.2521 of 2016
Decided On : 09-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.C.Janarthanan for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
For the Respondent:Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, ASGI for M/s.Khurana and Khurana, Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar Standing Counsel, Ms.R.L.Karthika Government Advocate

The statutory framework permits the installation of power transmission lines on private land despite objections, with the authority required primarily to consider compensation rather than block the project.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 68(1) and 164 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Requirement for permission before works on private land and obligation to consider objections - Dismissal of writ petition filed by a company contesting the installation of transmission towers on its land due to non-consideration of objections. (Paras 1, 3, 17, 19, 31)

(B) Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 - Rule 3 - Licenses should acquire prior consent from landowners, and objections must be resolved by the District Magistrate - The authority has limited power regarding temporary access to land for installation not resulting in permanent acquisition. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner company filed a writ petition to prevent respondents from constructing transmission lines on its land while contending that their objections were not considered by the District Collector or the respondents, who had initiated the project without due process. The company had previously applied for a solar power plant on the same land and claimed that their permissions were ignored during the project planning.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner purchased the property after public notices were issued regarding the project, indicating the lack of standing to object post-purchase, and noted that the respondents complied with procedural requirements.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner’s objections were duly considered and the legitimacy of the installation of towers on the property intended for solar energy production.

Ratio Decidendi: The decision reaffirmed that the exercise of rights under the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act permits the installation of infrastructure despite objections, with the authority's power being limited to addressing compensation issues.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. respondents' justification of actions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court's deliberations on applicable law. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. conclusion: writ petition is dismissed. (Para 31)

ORDER :

P.T.ASHA, J.

The above writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from erecting Transmission Towers / Lines in the petitioner’s lands bearing S.F.No.351/1 and 353/2A Kasthurirengapuram, Part I Village, Rathapuram Taluk,, Tirunelveli District which is against the 6th respondent’s Load Flow Study dated 27.11.2025 and without following the provisions of the Electricity act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885.

Petitioner’s case:

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that they are a Private Limited Company engaged in the production of wind energy and the supply of power to its group captive consumers within the State of Tamil Nadu. As the State of Tamil Nadu has more number of sunny days and is a forerunner in solar power generation and other non- conventional energy source, the petitioner, with a view to generating this green power, had made an application dated 03.05.2025 to the 6th respondent for establishing a 25 MW Solar Power Plant under the preferential tariff scheme for captive consumption. This request was approved by the 6th respondent and the petitioner was directed to pay the applicable charges, which included the registration fee, Load Flow Study Charges, refundable security deposit etc., The petitioner would submit that the security deposit was collected to ensure that a Solar Power Generator (SPG) diligently pursues the project, commissions it within the stipulated time and to eliminate and discourage players who were not serious about the project from blocking the power evacuation facility indefinitely. The petitioner would submit that, in all, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company had purchased the subject property under a registered Sale Deed dated 23.06.2025. The 6th respondent had conducted a detailed Load Flow Study and issued a report dated 21.11.2025 stating that the petitioner’s proposed 25 MW Solar Power Plant could be connected to the 110/33-11 KV Radhapuram Sub Station. The petitioner has also commenced the construction in full swing.

4. While so, to the absolute shock and surprise of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had issued a notice dated 17.07.2025 stating that it intends to install 400 KV Transmission Lines in Survey Numbers 351/1 and 353/2 which are patta lands in which 25MW Solar Power Plant is under construction. The officials of the 3rd respondent had started measuring the land, fixed the boundaries in the petitioner’s land and they continued the measurement process for the purpose of stringing 400 KW Transmission lines from one tower to another, thereby marking the entire land not fit for use.

5.The 3rd respondent had proposed to erect 400 KV transmission lines from Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project Units 3 and 4 to Tuticorin GIS. To this, the petitioner had raised his objections on 18.07.2025. However, the same has not been considered by the 3rd respondent either in the form of a reply or by passing any order. The 3rd respondent, without even appreciating the petitioner’s objections, is compelling the petitioner to permit them to install the basement for the HT Towers.

6. Although the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent in person seeking details of the project and a copy of its original sketch, no response was received from the 3rd respondent. That apart, the 3rd respondent refused to reconsider the decision. The petitioner also reliably understands that the respondents have deviated from the route of the HT lines in order to avoid and accommodate certain other lands and as a result of such deviation, the HT lines are now s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top