THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20309 of 2009 Date: 31.5.2010 Between: M/S. Srini Food Park Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Chief Managing Director, A.P. Transco., and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.Venkata Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for Respondent No. 6 : Sri P. Roy Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20309 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 in seeking to erect 220 K.V. line along the land of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V. Venkata Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.6 and perused the record. The petitioner is a company, which was allotted the land by Respondent No.6 for establishment of food processing industry in Mogili Village, Bangarupalyam Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. The grievance of the petitioner is that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are attempting to lay 440 K.V. line over the land allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, if the said line is erected, the very purpose of allotment of land in favour of the petitioner will be defeated and the land will be rendered useless. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Executive Engineer( TLC Division), A.P. TRANSCO., Tirupati, Chittoor District, who is arrayed as Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit wherein in it is stated that the transmission line in question is conceived to connect 400 KV Substation, G.D. Nellore and 220 K.V. Substation, Palamaneru. That the construction of 220/132 K.V. Substation at Palamaneru was completed ten months back with an expenditure of Rs. 25.00 crores and the construction of transmission line with a cost of Rs.10.00 crores is in progress and that as the existing 220/132 KV Substation at Renigunta, Chittoor and Kalikiri were already overloaded, charging of 220/132 K.V. Substation at Palamaneru is very much essential and was scheduled to be completed by end of December, 2009. It is further stated that the Zonal Manager, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Renigunta, (Respondent No.6) made a request in his letter dated 10.9.2008 for re-alignment of the line along the NH4 boundary instead of going through the middle of the land acquired and that following the inspection made by the Chief Engineer/TL&SS/Zone/Kadapa and Superintending Engineer/ TLC/Circle/A.P. TRANSCO., Kadapa along with Respondent No.6, it was observed that there is no possibility of re-routing the line along the NH4 as a minimum distance of 60 Mtrs. is required to be maintained from the National High way and that the said fact was intimated to Respondent No.6 on 4.10.2008. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Respondent No.6 vide his letter dated 10.10.2008, made a further request to the Director/Transmission, A.P. TRANSCO., to shift the line to the other side of the National High Way and that the said request was considered by the Chief Engineer/ Construction/Vidyut Soudha, during joint inspection on 24.10.2008, and as per the feasibility report prepared, the re-alignment was found not possible and that the said fact was informed by the Chief Engineer, TL&SS/Zone/Kadapa on 24.1.2009 to Respondent No. 6. That in the meantime, Respondent No.6 has handed over the lands in question to the petitioner on 2.2.2009 and that after the said allotment, at the instance of the petitioner, a coordination meeting was held on 23.9.2009 between the petitioner represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Ravinder Kumar- Respondent No. 6, Superintending Engineer/TLC Circle/Kadapa and Executive Engineer/ TLC Division/ Tirupati. That in the said meeting, the petitioner’s request was considered and it was agreed to shift the proposed 220 K.V. line to outside the compound wall of the petitioner, which will be at a distance of about 45 to 48 Mtrs., from the existing National High Way No.4 road edge, and, that it was further agreed that the towers of maximum height will be erected to facilitate easy passage of cargo vehicles and plant and machinery into the site from the multiple entry points on the access road along the compound wall. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner on 1.10.2009 itself and that the Managing Director of the petitioner has not signed the minutes. It is pleaded that TRANSCO., has shown maximum consideration to the petitioner’s concerns and accepted its request to the extent possible. It is further stated that necessary procedure required to be followed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003(for short ‘the Act’), has been scrupulously adhered to by publishing the proposed work in the gazette notification inviting objections and giving all technical and administrative approvals. No reply affidavit has been filed controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the contents of the counter affidavit, however submitted that though the A.P. TRANSCO has agreed to shift the proposed line to a place outside the compound wall of the petitioner’s premises, he, however, expressed an apprehension that on account of the erection of the transmission line, the petitioner may not be able to carry the material into the premises or vice versa. In my opinion, it is not possible for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the A.P. TRANSCO., Undisputedly, under Section 164 of the Act, A.P. TRANSCO., is entitled to erect the line. It is not in dispute that TRANSCO., has followed the procedure stipulated for laying the line. The fact remains that to an extent it has acceded to the petitioner’s request for shifting of the line. It has also agreed to erect higher towers to enable the petitioner to have more clearance for moving the material to and from its premises. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to hold that the respondents have committed any illegality or acted with arbitrariness in seeking to lay the transmission line, which is undoubtedly in public interest. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the petitioner’s activities to the extent possible on account of laying of the transmission line. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 31st May, 2010 pnb