IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3996 of 2010 1.Shagufta Fatima W/O Mohammad Ehsan Ullah R/O Vill.- Shahdeo Khap, P.S. Magadh University, Distt. Gaya. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Power, New Delhi 2. Under Secretary, Government Of India, Ministry Of Power, New Delhi 3. Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited (PGCIL) Through Its Managing Director B-9, Kutub Industrial Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi- 110016, 4. Executive Director, Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, 5th And 6th Floor Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna-800001 5. General Manager, Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Eastern Region Headquarter, 5th And 6th Floor, Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna-800001 6. Deputy General Manager (PESM & CPIO), Eastern Region Headquarter Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, 5th And 6th Floor, Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna-800001 7.Deputy General Manager. (TL) Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Powergrid, Gaya Sub Station And Transmission System, C/O Sanjay Kumar, A.P. Colony, Near Gaya College, Gaya. Respondents. With CWJC No.11195 of 2010 Madan Mohan Lal Das S/O Late Gangadhar Lal Das R/O Vill. Prem Jiwar, P.S. Bahadurpur (Laheriasarai), Distt.- Darbhanga. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Grid Corporation Of India Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Having Office At Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna 2. The Managing Director, Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd., Having Office At Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna 3. The Executive Director, Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd., Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Kamain Engineering Corporation, Ram Dayalu Nagar, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 2 5. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 6. The Superintendent Of Police, Darbhanga. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners in both the petitions: : Mr.Kumar D.P. Singh,Advocate For the Corporation :Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.K. Tiwary, Advocate. ----------- 4. 25.7.2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner of C.W.J.C.No.3996 of 2010 has her raiyati lands at Village Mahimapur within Bodhgaya Block in the district of Gaya and the petitioner of C.W.J.C.No.11195 of 2010 is a resident of Village Prem Jiwar, P.S. Bahadurpur, (Laheriasarai) in the district of Darbhanga and owner of land bearing Khata no.45, Khesra No.111 situated therein. The complaint of the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.3996 of 2010 is that the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘PGCIL’), in their endeavor of laying down of 440 KV transmission lines, has encroached over her raiyati holdings as described in the writ petition without any notice and without any permission. Similarly, the complaint of the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.11195 of 2010 is that PGCIL is constructing one 132 KV Tower line on her raiyati land as described above. 3 The petitioners thus dispute and raise objection to the erection of the transmission lines on their respective raiyati lands, inter alia on grounds that neither any notice nor any hearing has been afforded to them by the authorities of the PGCIL nor have they obtained their permission before carrying out the exercise. It is contended that the action complained besides being violative of the principles of natural justice, is also in teeth of the provisions of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the issue raised in the two writ petitions are no more res integra and stands concluded by a judgment and order dated 17.5.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.6993 of 2010 (Ram Naresh Singh Vs. The Power Grid Corporation) and affirmed by the Division Bench in a case reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 1030. Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation, in an effort to distinguish the present set of cases referred to the provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘rule’) framed under Electricity Act, 2003 and submits that undoubtedly the provisions have been 4 laid down protecting the interest of the land owners but regard being had to sub rule (4) of Rule 3, there is an over-riding power vested in the Licensee to carry out the project in the general public interest. He submits that the sub rule beginning with a non-obstante clause over rides the sub rule 1 to 3 to Rule 3. It is contended that as the work of the licensee is almost on its completion, any interference at this stage would be prejudicial to the general public interest and to the project for transmission of the electricity taken up by the licensee. Learned counsel for the Corporation has also referred to a Bench decision of this court rendered in M.A.No.72 of 2009 placed at Annexure-E to the counter affidavit whereunder a learned Single Judge of this Court considering the nature of the work undertaken by the licensee has upheld its right to install transmission lines without taking permission from the owners for carrying out the statutory duties. Learned counsel submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in appeal preferred by the land owners and also by the Supreme Court when the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. 5 As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the issue as raised in the present writ petitions was also a subject matter of the proceedings arising from C.W.J.C.No.6993 of 2010 (Ram Naresh Singh Vs. The Power Grid Corporation of India & ors.). A bench of this court, upon examination of the rival contentions which also have been reiterated today before this court, has held that Sub Rules 1,2,3 of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rule,2006 are mandatory in nature and that the licensee can not proceed for installation of transmission lines ignoring the said provisions relying upon sub rule 4 thereof. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the judgment passed in M.A.No.72 of 2009 and other judgments relied upon by the respondent Corporation, has proceeded to hold that as neither the provisions of the Works of licensees Rules, 2006 nor the restrictions qualified in the notification dated 24.12.2003 was brought to the notice of the courts, hence, the judgment rendered in the said cases, did not form a binding precedent. The scope and extent of Sub rule (4) of Rule 3 has been extensively dealt by the learned Single Judge and it has been held that notification dated 6 24.12.2003 issued by the Central Government in this connection and placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit itself qualifies the restrictions when it says that the authorisation is subject to compliance and requirements of the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder. The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench in a case reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 1030 (The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and Ors Vs. Ram Naresh Singh). The Division Bench, while affirming the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, has accorded liberty to the Corporation to seek permission from the authorities as required under Rule 3 of the Rules. Following the judicial pronouncement on the issue, as referred to above, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is restrained from proceeding any further with the installation of the electricity transmission lines over the raiyati lands of the petitioners without exhausting their remedies as available under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensee Rules 2006. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)