Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gowtham Kumar, Mr. J. Antony Jesus, Mr. P. Nethaji, Mr. Manjunath Karthikeyan
For the Respondents: Dr. S. Suriya, Mr. T. L. Thirumalai Swamy, Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Mr. D. R. Arunkumar, Dr. C. E. Pratap, Mr. Easan

Key Points from the Judgment

• Case Overview: Four connected writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 2673, 4084, 3202, and 2233 of 2025) challenge permissions granted to M/s T.P. Vardhaman Surya Limited (TPVSL) and Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited (TPREL) for entering lands and erecting transmission towers for a 198 MW wind power project in Tiruppur and Karur Districts, under Sections 10, 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Permissions Challenged: District Collector, Tiruppur, granted conditional permission to TPVSL on 31.12.2024 to enter specified survey fields in Erisanampalayam, Thattaravalasu, and Thoorampadi villages for tower erection, subject to compensation and safety rules. Central Electricity Authority authorized TPREL under Section 164 based on prior publications dated 10.06.2024. Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, directed inquiry into objections on 20.12.2024. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Project Background: TPREL planned 198 MW wind power station with 230/33 KV pooling substation and lines connecting to PGCIL substation; approvals obtained progressively from 13.10.2023 to 21.10.2024, including prior approval under Section 68 on 06.06.2024 and Section 164 notification on 21.10.2024 after no objections received post-publication. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Petitioners' Arguments: No notice or hearing before District Collector's order; violation of natural justice; non-delegation of Section 164 powers to TPVSL (subsidiary/SPV); publications in obscure newspapers (Afternoon, Dakshin Prakash, Dinaseithi) lacking wide circulation in Tiruppur; no specific survey numbers or land details; project is private captive generation without public interest; health, environmental, livelihood impacts; alternative routes possible. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Respondents' Arguments: Procedural compliance under Sections 68 and 164 Electricity Act and Telegraph Act; no mandatory notice/hearing under Section 10/16(1); compensation remedy available; publications followed SOP (Gazette and newspapers); newspapers had circulation; TPVSL is TPREL-controlled SPV; 39/66 towers erected; public interest in infrastructure/renewable energy; no alternative alignments suggested. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Court's Analysis on Section 16(1) Telegraph Act: No prior notice/hearing required under Section 10 for entry; protests/objections trigger Section 16(1) application; District Collector exercises limited discretion to ensure minimal damage, full compensation, and application by actual telegraph authority (non-delegable); must consider objections within this scope via reasoned order, without altering route. Order to TPVSL quashed as only TPREL holds authority; direct reconsideration treating application as TPREL's. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Court's Analysis on Section 164 Electricity Act Procedure: Prior Section 68 approval requires Gazette and two local newspapers (wide circulation) publication of route alignment, inviting 2-month objections for optimal route finalization; survey numbers not mandatory (route alignment suffices, available at office); purpose is route optimization, not individual land avoidance. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Findings on Publications: Newspapers (Afternoon English, Dinaseithi Tamil, Dakshin Prakash Hindi - Coimbatore editions) lacked verifiable wide circulation in Tiruppur per Press Registrar/CBC data; not comparable to established papers (e.g., The Hindu, Daily Thanthi); Hindi irrelevant; violated mandatory "wide circulation" requirement, rendering process secretive/non-compliant. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Public Interest and Remedies: Private captive project lacks overriding public interest justification; stricter procedure adherence needed for private entities' draconian powers; Section 20A Specific Relief Act inapplicable to cure Article 300A violations; partial tower erection protectable pending fresh process. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Final Directions: Quash Section 164 license (Gazette 22.10.2024); TPREL to republish in specified wide-circulation newspapers (e.g., The Hindu/Times of India English, Dinakaran/Dinamalar/Daily Thanthi Tamil - Coimbatore editions) within 2 weeks, consider 60-day objections, reapply for license (decision within 4 weeks); District Collector to process TPREL Section 16 applications within 4 weeks; existing 39 towers protected pending outcome; no interference by authorities. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)