ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Kartikeya Saran for the respondents 4 and 5; and perused the record.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order, dated 17.03.2021, passed by U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow (for short the 'Commission') in Petition No. 1530 of 2019. The petitioners also seek quashing of the orders dated 26.08.2019 and 05.01.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 14 of 2018 and Misc. Case No. 7 of 2016, respectively. In addition to above, the petitioners pray for a direction upon the respondents to lay electricity transmission lines according to the sanctioned map approved by the District Magistrate, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the D.M.) vide order dated 23.08.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2016.

3. To have a clear understanding of the controversy at hand, a glimpse at the facts would be apposite. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited-4th respondent (for short the Nigam) proposed to lay an electricity transmission line in village Karnawal, District Meerut. The route for the line was to pass from near a structure (room) that housed a tube-well of the petitioners. Aggrieved with proposed line's close proximity with that structure, an application was submitted by the petitioners before the D.M. with copy to the Managing Director (for short M.D.) of the Nigam. The M.D. of the Nigam, on 29.05.2015, passed an order rejecting the application of the petitioners after noticing and observing that the proposed line was not passing from over the room or structure housing the tube-well of the petitioners and that the poles of the proposed line were placed on chak-road (i.e. village path-way), though near petitioners' place but at a distance which would obviate any threat or danger of an accident. Aggrieved with rejection of their application, the petitioners filed Writ-C No. 10033 of 2016, which was disposed off, vide order dated 31.03.2016, by giving liberty to the petitioners to apply to the D.M. in terms of the second proviso to Rule 3(b) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (for short 'Licensees Rules, 2006') framed under the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'Act, 2003'). Pursuant to that liberty, the petitioners filed a representation before the D.M. The D.M., after calling for reports, vide order dated 23.08.2016, directed shifting of the proposed transmission line,. That shift made the transmission line to pass through the fields of few tenure holders. Consequently, Jaipal Singh and another (the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 6/1 to 6/3) filed Writ-C No. 48248 of 2016, which was disposed off, vide order dated 04.10.2016, by giving liberty to those petitioners to represent their cause to the D.M. under the Licensees Rules, 2006. As a result, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 6/1 to 6/3 submitted a representation before the D.M. The D.M. again examined the matter and, after considering spot inspection report, upon finding that the initially proposed route of the transmission line, prior to its alteration by order dated 23.08.2016, was to be mounted on poles installed on the chak-road adjoining plot Nos. 1239, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1265, 1266 and 1267 and was not passing over anybody's field, by his order dated 05.01.2018 affirmed the original proposed route of the transmission line.

4. Being aggrieved with the restoration of the original route, the petitioners filed Writ-C No. 11086 of 2018 to question the order dated 05.01.2018 on the ground that the D.M. held no jurisdiction to revisit the order dated 23.08.2016 which was passed after hearing both sides, particularly, when it was not challenged in Writ-C No. 48248 of 2016; and that the writ court's direction issued in Writ-C No. 48248 of 2016 was obtained by concealing the order dated 23.08.2016. After noticing the aforesaid plea taken by the petitioners, Writ-C No. 11086 of 2018 was disposed off, vide order dated