The court established that approvals granted under the Electricity Act must respect existing rights and that private disputes should be adjudicated in civil courts, not through writ petitions.

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in power production projects. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 10.01.2024, whereby approval has been granted under Section 10(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in favour of the fourth respondent. The petitioner challenges the same on the grounds impugned in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out therein. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one. He pointed out that the petitioner had already been paid compensation through private negotiation. Secondly, the first respondent is very much empowered under Section 164 of the to grant the impugned approval. Written submissions have been filed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for TANTRANSCO submitted that the project is in question is a private power project. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and went through the materials placed on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.8440 of 2024 seeking to restrain the TANTRANSCO from carrying out the petition mentioned works. The said writ petition was disposed of by me on 22.04.2024 by relegating the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court. The said order reads as under: “ Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the premise that TANTRANSCO is carrying out the petition mentioned works and the third respondent is a contractor. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel for TAN TRANSCO clarified that the petition mentioned project is not a project of the public utility and that the third respondent is carrying out the work in their capacity as sub contractor of M/s.JSW Renewable Energy (Vijayanagar) Ltd. 4. The writ Court will not adjudicate the private dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the third respondent on the other. It is for the petitioner to work out their rights before the jurisdictional civil Court.

5. Granting such liberty to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

8. It is true that the Government of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had conferred upon TANTRANSCO the powers of the Telegraph authority under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. If TANTRANSCO had passed an order under Section 10(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 it would have been a different matter altogether. In that event, all the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would have deserved acceptance. But, the impugned communication has been issued only under Section 10(1) of the , 2003. The said provision reads thus: “ 10. Duties of generating companies: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the duties of a generating company shall be to establish, operate and maintain generating stations, tie~lines, sub~stations and dedicated transmission lines connected therewith in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.” 9. I fail to understand as to how the impugned communication can by itself authorise the fourth respondent to ride a roughshod over the rights of the petitioner herein. That is why the fourth respondent contend that they had entered into an independent understanding with the petitioner and also paid them the appropriate compensation. The petitioner of course would claim that they had been cheated by their employee and that therefore the understanding arrived at by the employee will not bind them. 10. Learned Senior Counsel would rebut this argument by pointing out that the cheque was issued by the fourth respondent not in favou