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 earli