By the Court.—This appeal involves balancing of individual rights with public rights. It arises out of an order passed by the trial Court granting temporary injunction in the following setting.

THE FACTS

2. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (the Corporation) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its shares are owned by the President of India: it is a Central Government Company.

3. The main purpose of the Corporation is to set up national infrastructure for distribution of electricity.

4. The Corporation has an electric sub-station in district Bareilly and another at Mandola, district Ghaziabad. The sub-station at Mandola is meant for distributing electricity in the national capital region (the NCR).

5. There is already an electric transmission line between Bareilly and Mandola sub-stations. However, in order to augment the distribution of electricity in the NCR, a proposal was made to construct loon-in and loop-out (LILO) electrical line between Bareilly and Mandola via Meerut (the Project). It was granted sanction on 3.11.2009.

6. In pursuance of the Project, the Corporation started erecting and stringing the towers. Most of the towers have been erected, however, when the Corporation started erecting the tower on plot No. 279 of village Badnauli, Tehsil Hapur, district Ghaziabad. it was objected by Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta and others (the contesting respondents). They filed OS No. 212 of 2011 for permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from erecting the tower and laying overload electricity lines on the plot.

7. The main allegation in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs are owners of plots number 278 and 279 in village Badnauli, tehsil Hapur, district Ghaziabad;

Kanta Construction is the registered firm of the contesting respondents. It manufactures cemented sewer pipes on the plots;

The Corporation has marked the land for erecting tower without information to them;

In case tower is erected then they will not able to run the factory;

The tower can easily be constructed in the adjacent land.

8. In the aforesaid suit, the contesting respondents also filed an application for a temporary injunction. This application has been allowed on 7.7.2011 on the following findings:

(a) The Corporation was granted permission on 3.11.2009 but no work has been done;

(b) In case the Corporation is permitted to complete the work;

The contesting respondent would be deprived of exercising their Bhumidhari rights;

The employment of employees in the factory would come to an end;

(c) There would always be possibility of danger because of overhead electric lines.

Hence the present appeal by the Corporation.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

9. We have heard Sri Anjani Mishra, counsel for the Corporation and Sri SK Tyagi and Sri UN Sharma, counsel for the contesting respondents. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being decided at this stage. The following points arise for determination in the appeal:

(i) Whether the Corporation has power to erect the towers or lay overhead electrical lines;

(ii) Can the corporation erect the tower and lay overhead electric lines without permission of the relevant authority under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (The 2006 Rules);

(iii) Whether the contesting respondents are entitled to temporary injunction.

1st POINT: CORPORATION HAS POWER

10. The generation and distribution of electricity was governed by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (the Old Act). At present, it has been replaced by the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act).

11. The old Act and the Act envisage different kinds of utilities and licences: one of them is transmission utility and transmission licence. The Corporation was declared Central Transmission Utility under Section 27(A) (i) of the Old Act by the notification dated 31.12.1998. It has also been so declared under section 38 (1) of the Act by the notification dated 27.11.2003.

12. The Act also defines who is a licensee under Section 2(39) of