The District Magistrate is not required to hear all objections regarding the laying of transmission lines, but only when referred by the Telegraph Authority, as established under the Indian Telegraph Act.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

(Judgment dictated by Shekhar B. Saraf, J. in open Court)

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Power Grid Company’), has prayed for the following substantial reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Aligarh (respondent no.3) to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure No.6), after providing him with an opportunity of hearing, most expeditiously or within such time period as this Hon'ble Court may direct;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner and not to erect any tower for installation of High Tension wires in the land of the petitioner in Khasra no.61/1, area .9446 hectare situated in Village Narayanpur, pargana Chandaus, Tehsil- Khair District Aligarh, until disposal of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.3.2025, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.”

2. Ms. Shreya Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that upon a reading of Section 10 read with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the District Magistrate is required to pass an order under Section 16 (1) of the Act. It is her submission that this provision mandatorily requires the Power Grid Company, that is, the Telegraph Authority to grant hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, pass a reasoned order with regard to the resistance/obstruction made by the petitioner. To buttress her argument, she has relied upon paragraph 23 of the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum and Others reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 47 (V 59 C 10). The relevant extract of the said paragraph is delineated below:

“23. … We have, therefore, necessarily to understand the statute as enabling an owner or occupier or a person having control over the property over which a line is sought to be placed as having the right to resist or obstruct. When the Telegraph Authority is so resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate can be approached. If he is approached, the District Magistrate would decide whether the authority should be permitted to exercise the powers. When the District Magistrate decides that he should be so permitted resistance thereafter is made an offence. And there is an obligation cast upon the owner or occupier to render all facilities for the exercise of that power. The sections (Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 16) can only be understood in this manner. In short Sections 10 and 16 have to be read together, and when there is resistance or obstruction, the power under Section 10 can be exercised only when the District Magistrate passes an order under Section 16(1) that he shall be permitted to exercise them.”

3. She further relies on the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagir Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Others ; Netural Citation No.-2011:AHC:120828-DB. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under :

“From the provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act and the provisions of U.P.Electricity Act,2003, it is clear that there i