IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15798 of 2009 1. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, S/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Singh, R/o Village Punaura, P.S. Sitamarhi, District – Sitamarhi …… Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Chairman N.H.P.C. at Patna, Bihar 2. The Executive Engineer, N.H.P.C., Muzaffarpur, Bihar 3. District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Bihar 4. Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Sitamarhi, Bihar ....... Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Verma Mrs. Madhubala Verma For the respondent: Mr. Raghib Ahshan Mr. P. Tekriwal, G.A. I Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh -------------- 5 22.04.2010 The petitioner objects to construction of extra high tension electricity transmission towers on his land without his consent. He alleges that National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. walked into petitioner’s land and started constructing permanent structure to build extra high voltage transmission towers. Upon writ application being filed, orders were passed for maintaining status quo. It is now virtually an agreed position that this has been done, as alleged by the petitioner, and no consent has been taken. In my view the authorities seem unaware of the provisions of the Works Of Licensees Rules 2006 made with reference to the Electricity Act 2003. These rules authorize a licensee to carry out work of laying transmission lines etc., but the first pre- condition is, if it has been done on land of another, it has to be done with his consent. If it is objected then the matter is to be referred to the Collector – cum – District Magistrate to seek permission of the District Magistrate. Further, they would have to compensate the person, which compensation if not agreed otherwise, District Magistrate has to fix. Regrettably, in the present case nothing of that sort has been done. No permission of the landlord was taken, nor the District Magistrate’s permission and approval taken, nor compensation paid or offered to be paid. In such situation, in view of Article 3OOA of the Constitution and the Works Of Licensees Rules 2006, as aforesaid, I have no option but to restrain the respondent from carrying out the aforesaid construction any further, in any manner, without complying with the provisions of the said Rules. It is open for them to approach the petitioner for consent and to come to a negotiated settlement in respect of compensation and other matters in accordance with the Rules, and if, the petitioner doesn’t agree, it is open for them to bring it to the notice of District Magistrate to bring about a settlement and for his decision in the matter, but, till such time no further work can be done. With these observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. Praful ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)