JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since common question of facts and law are involved in both these petitions, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1914 of 2024 shall be referred to, unless otherwise specifically mentioned in the judgment.

2. In both these petitions, the petitioners seek mandamus to quash the proposed Right of Way (“ROW”) and proposed map transmission line at the diversion of Koteshwar- Meerut CKT-1 of 765 KV bearing chainage no. 4+750, Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The petitioners also seek directions for diverting the proposed High Tension transmission line (“HT transmission line”) away from the overhead of the petitioners premises.

3. Fact necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:-

The petitioner is running a factory. He came to know that the proposed HT transmission line is supposed to cross overhead the factory. In furtherance to which, the job work has also been assigned to the respondent no.5, The IRCON International Limited (“the IRCON International”. The petition is mainly based on the following grounds:-

(i) The HT transmission line is right overhead the factory premises of the petitioner.

(ii) The proposed route for HT transmission line is divided in to four channels from proposed AP 01 to AP 04, in which the line passing from AP 01 to AP 02 crosses the petitioner factory overhead, which may cause unimaginable damages to the lives and property of the petitioner,

(iii) No alternative route/ROW was proposed by the licensee i.e. respondent no.4, the Power Grid Corporation of India (“the Power Grid Corporation”).

(iv) Notices were to be served to land owners for construction of the HT transmission line and only after the NOC from the land owners, the said project is to be initiated. Whereas in the instant case, neither the petitioners were approached, nor they were intimated of the proposed HT transmission line by the respondents.

(v) No summons and intimations were given to the petitioners or public nearby for inquiry or survey in the vicinity of the petitioners compound, which is in violation of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (“the Telegraph Act”), the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Electricity Act”) and also in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

(vi) The proposed HT transmission line is solely proposed due to proposed Haridwar Ring Road. Therefore, the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 are applicable and it was mandatory for the respondent no.2, the State of Uttarakhand to issue 30 days notice for inviting public comments for seeking claims and objections, which was not done in the instant matters.

(vii) The proposed HT transmission line was not sanctioned with appropriate scientific temperament by using Techno Economical consideration as is mandatory under the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act.

(viii) The HT transmission line is in violation to Rule 3 and 10 of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006, whereby the consent of the owner is to be taken before finalisation of ROW.

(ix) The proposed HT transmission line does not maintain the statutory guidelines in terms of maintaining the heights from the existing buildings.

(x) It was imperative for the respondents to consult the respondent no.2, the State Government with respect to the ROW for eliminating or reducing the risk of personal injury to any person, or damage to any property.

(xi) The survey allegedly conducted by the respondents is an eyewash and the same is not in conformity with the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations,2023 (“CEA Regulations, 2023”).

(xii) In the instant case, Regulation 63 of the CEA Regulations, 2023 has not been followed; no document has been placed by the respondents to show that the proposed ROW is the only or best available option.

(xiii) The proposed HT transmission line is in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India alongw