Reserved Judgment HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1914 of 2024 M/s Om Packaging Industries ….....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .….Respondents Present:-

Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent no.1.

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State/respondent no.2. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.3, through video conferencing.

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.4.

Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.5.

And Writ Petition (M/S) No. 944 of 2025 M/s Shree Ganga Stone Crusher Company ….....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .….Respondents Present:-

Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent no.1.

Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.2.

Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.3, through video conferencing.

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.4.

Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.5.

JUDGMENT

Per:Hon’ble 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 A