ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.

1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following reliefs:

“8A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent no.2 GETCO to consider installing underground cable laying of 66 KV underground electrical cable for Sarigam-Saorda electric line as the said purpose as the up overhead line is being the illegal, discriminating and arbitrary;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be please to issue an appropriate, writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, pardi as same being illegal, discriminating and arbitrary;”

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that work of laying the cables is over after constructions of towers and electricity is also in operation.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not paid any compensation for their land being utilized for installation for underground cable. He has placed reliance on the provision of Section 10(c) and (d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short “the Telegraph Act”). He has also placed reliance on the provision of Section 16 of the Telegraph Act and has submitted that the petitioners can only approach District Judge, if compensation is not paid. Further, it is not denied by the learned advocate that the electric cables are also installed after construction of towers and electric charge is also operational. He has placed reliance on the provision of Clause (d) and sub-section (i) of Clause (e) of Section 4 of the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (for short “the PESA Act”) and has submitted that Gramsabha in fact, vide communication dated 07.10.2021 had objected for construction or laying down of the cables however, nothing was done. It is submitted that thus, the prayers made in the writ petition may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar has urged that since the work is already over, this Court may not interfere at this stage by directing the respondent authority to remove the cables as well as the towers, which are constructed as it would affect the public at large. So far as Section 4 of PESA Act is concerned, it is submitted that the same will apply only in the case of acquisition of the land and, in the present case, and there is no acquisition of land. He has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel Vs. Chief Engineer (Project) Gujarat Energy Transmission and Ors., 2011 (2) GLH 781, more particularly paragraph No.52. He has further submitted that the petitioners have remedy under Sections 16 and 17 of the Telegraph Act, if they so desire.

5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

6. The fact, which is not disputed, is that as on today, the entire work of laying the cables is already over, towers are already constructed and electricity lines are in operation. Thus, after completion of entire work and in the wake of the fact that the electric lines are in operation, this Court, cannot issue any mandamus to the respondents to demolish the towers and to shift the cables. The only prayer made in the writ petition is with regard to issuance of direction in nature of mandamus to the respondent No.2- GETCO to consider installing underground cable laying of 66 KV underground electrical cable for Sarigam-Saorda line, and second prayer refers to issue of order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pardi. Thus, no prayer with regard to compensation has been incorporated in the