IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19553 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Partap Singh and others ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana, through its Special Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Power, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed by the residents of Village Seenk, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat, seeking for restraint against the respondents for installation of a mega project of making electric installation of 132 KV Sub station adjoining the school, water Tank and abadi of the Village. The petitioners claim is that it will be a serious threat to the safety of village. The petitioners rely on some published literature that the electrical fields created around high voltage installations are likely to cause cancer and would seek therefore for a restraint against such installations. The claim for Civil Writ Petition No.19553 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - injunction on such large scale apprehensions is not possible through a writ petition. The electrical installations are led through a process brought under the provisions of the Electricity Act. 2. The issue of the right of the landowners to seek for reliefs against the licensees or Electricity Board from laying high- tension wires under the Electricity Act over the lands was considered in a batch of writ petitions by this court in Kanwar Singh Versus Union of India and others in CWP No.7902 of 2011, decided on 19.07.2011. The judgment has been rendered after examination of the provisions of the Electricity Act of 2003, Electricity Act of 1910, Telegraph Act of 1885, Electricity Rules of 2005, Electricity Rules of 1952, and Works of Electricity Rules of 2006. The judgment traverses the requirements of notice, the extent of objections by landowners and the power of the licensee to lay overhead transmission lines, operating under the authority of the State and holds that there exists no violation of the relevant Acts or Rules to justify an intervention through the writ petition. Without repeating all the provisions, it is sufficient if I observe that in terms of Section 67 of the Electricity Act of 2003, the Government has requisite power to lay down or place electric supply lines and the procedure and manner of consideration of objections received from the members of public after the public notice is issued. Section 68 gives a procedure for laying overhead lines. The Central Government has also framed Works of Licensee Rules of 2006 Civil Writ Petition No.19553 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - which if read with provisions of Section 176(2) provide for an owner or an occupier to raise objection in respect of any works to be carried out. The licensee himself cannot carry out the works without permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the authorities specified under the Rules. Rule 3(2) empowers District Magistrate to determine compensation and Rule 4 guides the power to the extent provided under the order issued under Section 164. Section 164 empowers the Government to lay transmission wires with the authorities as prescribed under the Telegraph Act. The 2006 Rules are effective from April 2006 and the said Rules can also be invoke only in cases where the power is not granted to the licensee under Section 164 of 2003 Act. Sections 10 to 19 of the Telegraph Act delineates the extent of power that a licensee could invoke and the rights of any owner, who is aggrieved by the electric installations. The power to lay transmission wires themselves do not require acquisition of property, except in cases where along the transmission lines, a licensee requires large structures or buildings to be erected. To the extent to which any damage results to owner of land or loss of income by inability to put the property to use for persons, who want property immediately under overhead wires, there is only a provision for compensation. If the law such as the Electricity Act or Telegraph Act empowers an appropriate Government or the licensee to make use the property for establishing electrical lines, there is no more right of an individual to demand than to accept the strict Civil Writ Petition No.19553 of 2011 (O&M) - 4 - observance of the provisions of the said Act. The compensation itself will be provided in the manner contemplated under the Telegraph Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act. It could include even the claim for compensation for inconvenience that an owner may have to suffer by the electric installations. All these operations cannot take place without appropriate public notice. The petition is completely lacking in particulars about the statutory notices that ought to have been issued and what came to their objections. Under the Electricity Act of 2003, there is a requirement of publication of transmission scheme, the name and address of the licensee and the mode of obtaining acknowledgment of receipt of copies of documents that any member of public can obtain from a licensee proposing to make the installations. There is a large body of case law that deal with how the objections could be made in relation to installation of overhead lines. The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself had an occasion to advert to some of the provisions in Managing Director, Ramakrishna Poultry Private Limited Versus R.Chellappan-(2009) 16 SCC 743. The Kerala High Court through its judgment in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd. Versus Kerala SEB-AIR 1972 Ker 47(FB), the Andhra Pradesh High Court through its judgment in G.V.S. Ramakrishna Versus Managing Director A.P.Transoco-AIR 2009 AP 15 8 , the Calcutta High Court in Ashish Kumar Ghose Versus CESC Ltd.-AIR 2004 Cal 130, the Gujarat High Court in Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel Civil Writ Petition No.19553 of 2011 (O&M) - 5 - Versus State of Gujarat-AIR 2007 Guj 32, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajak Versus NTPC- AIR 1988 MP 172 , the Madras High Court in Chennimalai Gounder Versus Government of Tamil Nadu-AIR 2001 Mad 98; the Jharkhand High Court in Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust Versus Power Grid Corporation-AIR 2008 Jha 34 have all upheld the primacy of public interest over private objectors and recognize the authority of the State or its licensee to lay overhead wires irrespective of objections of private landowners and if objections are tenable, provide for a method of redressal of grievance. This cannot be ventilated through a writ petition on bald allegations. 3. The petitioners cannot, therefore, have any relief in this writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed, even at the stage of admission without serving a notice on the respondents. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.10.2011 sanjeev