IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Suresh Kumar Saini - Petitioner
Versus
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2475 of 2013
Decided On : 04.12.2013
Electricity Act - Installation of High Tension Electric Lines - The Electricity Act, 2003, Section 164; The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 10, 16(1) and (2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the installation of high tension electric lines by Power Grid over their land, alleging arbitrary and illegal action by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner and Power Grid to approach the District Magistrate for appropriate orders in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act and the Indian Telegraph Act.
Issues: Dispute over the installation of electric lines, resistance by the petitioner, and the authority's power to seek permission from the District Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the findings of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which held that there is no requirement to obtain the owner's consent before laying a transmission line under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. It also emphasized the authority's right to approach the District Magistrate for appropriate orders and the owner's entitlement to compensation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the parties to approach the District Magistrate for appropriate orders within four weeks.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has come before this Court challenging the action of the respondents i.e. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (in short ‘Power Grid’), who are installing High Tension Electric Lines over the land of the petitioner to which the petitioner resists and calls it an arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent – Power Grid has changed the alignment of the lines of electric polls in collusion with respondent No. 3.
2. This matter is governed by two Acts, namely, The Electricity Act, 2003 and The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 gives certain power to the Telegraph Authority, which reads as under:-
“164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases – The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electricity lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licencee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained.”
Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 is relevant in the present case, which reads as under:-
“10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.—The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property:
Provided that—
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained;
(b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.”
Thereafter Section 16(1) and (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 is also relevant in the present case, which reads as under:-
“16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.—
(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for this being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
In view of the above provisions of law, it is clear that in case, the District Magistrate of the area, if he thinks it fit shall permit the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.