The main legal point established in the judgment is that no consent of the owner or occupier is required for laying down electricity lines as per Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

JUDGMENT

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. These petitions are analogously heard on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties.

Facts are taken from W.P. No. 2496/13.

The petitioners are owners of land described in the writ petition. Their grievance is that the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (Corporation) is laying high tension electricity line through their land. At the outset, Shri T.S. Ruprah, learned senior counsel for the Corporation relied on a recent judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. 3868/14 (Alkesh Tripathi Vs. The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and others). On the strength of this, it is stated that this judgment squarely covers the points involved in the petitions in hand and petitions deserve to be dismissed.

2. Shri K.N. Gupta, senior counsel submits that the judgment in Alkesh Tripathi (supra) is distinguishable. By taking this Court to various paragraphs of Alkesh Tripathi (supra), it is argued that in Alkesh Tripathi (supra) and in the judgment of Indore Bench in Vijay Ramanchandra Agrawal Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (2010(4) MPLJ 73, the facts are different. To elaborate, Shri Gupta, learned senior counsel submits that in Alkesh Tripathi (supra) and in Vijay Ramanchandra Agrawal (supra), the petitioners were aggrieved because of diversion of the electricity line through their land, whereas in the present case those facts are not available. It is submitted that the judgment in a case must be considered in the factual back drop of the said case and it cannot be used as a euclid's theorem. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid distinguishing fact, where the electricity line was being diverted in the said cases which is not the case here, the said judgments are clearly distinguishable.

3. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (2006 Rules). By taking this Court to Rule 3 of the said Rules, it is submitted that it was obligatory and mandatory on the part of the licensee to obtain prior permission either from the owner/occupier or from the appropriate authority prescribed in the said provision. In absence thereof, the mandate of Rule is not followed. He further submits that similar facts were considered by the Patna High Court in LPA No. 1132/2010 (The Power Grid Corporation Vs. Ram Naresh Singh and Ors). He submits that Patna High Court judgment squarely covers his case. In addition, he submits that petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to enjoy his property/land. Petitioner's rights can be taken away only as per the procedure laid down in law.

4. Per contra, Shri T.S. Ruprah, learned Senior counsel submits that a plain reading of Rule 3 of 2006 Rules makes it clear that it is applicable in all situations of laying the line from the land of a person. It does not distinguish between diversion of the line or laying down the land for the first time. He submits that the distinction sought to be made is imaginary and has no legs to stand. He further submits that in national interest, interim order be vacated. He placed heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Indore Bench in Vijay Ramanchandra Agrawal (supra). By taking this Court to para 17 of the judgment of writ court and writ appellate court, it is submitted that curtains are finally drawn on the said point and, therefore, Wps. be dismissed. Shri Khedkar prayed for compensation. No other point is pressed by the parties.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the Government of India by notification dated 24.12.2003 has authorized the Corporation to undertake exercise of laying down the electricity line. Learned counsel for the parties, during the course of argument, clearly admitted that the electricity line which is subject matter of challenge in the present case is arising out of same project which was called in question in Alkesh Tri