Case: Shri Vivek Brajendra Singh &amp; Others Vs. State Government of Maharashtra &amp; Others

from Koradi TPS to Wardha under the authorization dated 24/8/2006 issued by the Government of Maharashtra.CHALLENGE TO ORDERS UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885:29. It must be noticed that Section 16 empowers the District Magistrate to make an order that the Telegraph Authority shall be permitted to exercise powers under Section 10, if the exercise of powers for placing an electric line is resisted or obstructed. Further the Section makes a provision for an application to be made to the District Judge, in case a dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of compensation to be paid under Section 10. In these cases, the applications were made by the to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property, over which the line is to be passed and a tower is to be situated, falls. All these applications were duly registered as revenue cases and the owners and occupiers of the land were heard after notices were issued to them. The applicant has pointed out its authorization to do the work of placing of the line and that the work was obstructed by the non-applicants and it is getting stalled on account of obstructions created by the non-applicants and the other persons. The District Magistrate has taken into account the reply and documents filed by the parties and after hearing the parties, has come to the conclusion that the Transmission Company is entitled for permission to carry out and continue the work of the transmission line in exercise of the statutory function as a State Transmission Utility. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had raised numerous contentions which have not been gone into. We find that most of the contentions about which grievance is made that they were not considered are outside the scope of enquiry under Section 16, such as whether the Government of Maharashtra is an appropriate Government or not, whether the notification under Section 164 has been properly issued or not and whether the State Government can issue a notification in respect of a law which can only be enacted by Parliament under Entry 31 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule and so on. In terms of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the enquiry is restricted to whether there is any justification for resisting or obstructing the powers under Section 10 and whether the Telegraph Authority should be permitted to exercise the powers. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the contention, which is rejected.30. It was next contended that the authorization under Section 164 can only be made, inter alia, for the purpose of proper coordination of works and there is no such purpose apparent from the authorization. We fail to see any merit in this contention. Undoubtedly the term works in the context refers to various activities referred in Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 such as opening and breaking up the soil and pavement of any street, railway or tramway; opening and breaking up of any sewer, drain or tunnel; altering the position of any line or works or pipes; laying down and placing electrical lines and all other acts necessary for the transmission or supply of electricity. This obviously requires coordination since these various works are normally done by various other local authorities whose permission and cooperation is necessary to prevent a chaos. It was also contended by Mr. Sohoni and Mr. Mandlekar that Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, only confers the power to place a telegraph line and post. Therefore, the transmission companies are not entitled to place towers instead of posts. Section 3(5) defines the term post as follows:3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,(1) .....(2) .....(3) .....(4) .....(5) post means a post, pole, standard, stay, strut or other above ground contrivance for carrying, suspending or supporting a telegraph line;A tower undoubtedly supports a line and, therefore, must be construed to be a post within the meaning of subsection (5). The work for telegraph line undoubtedly be understood as referring to an electric line in view of Section 164 which specifically empowers the appropriate Government to issue an order in writing for conferring any of the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act with respect to placing of telegraph lines and post for the placing of telegraph lines.31. Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 5811/2011, 5812/2011, 5813/2011, 6093/2011 and 6094/2011 submitted that the petitioners therein have not been given an opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel referred to the communication by transmission company to the Collector, Wardha where only seven persons were shown as obstructing the work of laying of lines. According to the learned counsel, these petitioners names have been added in the final order under Section 16, though no notice of the transmission companys application under Section 16 for removal of obstruction was served on these petitioners. The learned Addl. G. P. is not in a position to point out if, in fact, the notices were issued to these petitioners and these petitioners were heard. In the circumstances, we direct that the Collector, Wardha shall issue notice to the petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned hereinabove and pass an appropriate orders under Section 16 and till such orders are passed, the transmission company shall not carry on any work in the lands of these petitioners.PERMISSION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY :32. Mr. Mandlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though the transmission company is laying lines in lands of local authorities, which are subject matter of Writ Petition Nos. 5811/2011, 5812/2011 and 5813/2011, no permission of the local authority has been obtained by the transmission company as required by section 10 (c) and 12 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. We find that the local authority has not made any such grievance. It would be for the local authority to raise this issue, if aggrieved thereby, before the authorities.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The present case does not involve the acquisition of land but only the user by the State for a limited purpose, for which there is provision for payment of compensation. Moreover, it seems unreasonable to confer on the owners or occupiers of land a choice about what should be the route of the electric line and where it should be placed, since such a decision must yield to the dictates of technical knowledge, expertise and viability. There is no doubt that if all owners and occupiers of land over hundreds of kilometers are allowed to have a say and object to the routes and if the validity of the orders passed under objection is allowed to be contested, the route may not get finalized for years. Having regard to the importance of electricity to the life of citizen, particularly to essential services and industry, such a procedure would be detrimental to public interest. Similarly, the observations in Darshanlal Nagpals case, emphasizing the importance of the rules of natural justice cannot be applied to the present case. Apart from the fact that challenge on the ground of Article 14 is excluded by virtue of Article 31A, we are of the view that the present case calls for a situational exception and of necessity, the authorities may not be compelled to hear owners and occupiers before deciding on the route over which an electric line should be placed. Therefore, the contention that the legislative scheme, which does not require the authorities to hear the owners and occupiers of the land while planning the route of an electric line is unconstitutional, is rejected. So also the contention that Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are void being violative of Article 14 is rejected.We do not see any merit in the contention that the provisions are violative of Article 21 on the ground that they adversely affect the health of persons living in or around high tension lines. In the first place, the electric line in question, which is high tension 400 KV line is to be placed over agricultural fields and not over a residential area. Secondly, no proof is placed before the court to enable it to draw an inference that the placing of electric line causes cancer as alleged. We are unable to draw this inference on the basis of a report from Australia placed onlegislative scheme in regard to the electric lines is that after the repeal of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the work of placing of electrical lines must be done under Sections 12 to 18 of the old Act 1910 till rules are framed under Sections 67 and 68 of the new Electricity Act, 2003. If there is any such notification under Section 164 of the new Act 2003, conferring powers of the Telegraph Authority for the purpose of placing electric lines, during the transitory period when rules are not framed under Sections 67 and 68 of the new Act 2003, the Transmission Company did not and cannot act under Sections 12 to 18 of the old Act, 1910. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is, therefore,find that most of the contentions about which grievance is made that they were not considered are outside the scope of enquiry under Section 16, such as whether the Government of Maharashtra is an appropriate Government or not, whether the notification under Section 164 has been properly issued or not and whether the State Government can issue a notification in respect of a law which can only be enacted by Parliament under Entry 31 ofof the Seventh Schedule and so on. In terms of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the enquiry is restricted to whether there is any justification for resisting or obstructing the powers under Section 10 and whether the Telegraph Authority should be permitted to exercise the powers. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the contention, which is rejected.30. It was next contended that the authorization under Section 164 can only be made, inter alia, for the purpose of proper coordination of works and there is no such purpose apparent from the authorization. We fail to see any merit in this contention. Undoubtedly the term works in the context refers to various activities referred in Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 such as opening and breaking up the soil and pavement of any street, railway or tramway; opening and breaking up of any sewer, drain or tunnel; altering the position of any line or works or pipes; laying down and placing electrical lines and all other acts necessary for the transmission or supply of electricity. This obviously requires coordination since these various works are normally done by various other local authorities whose permission and cooperation is necessary to prevent a chaos. It was also contended by Mr. Sohoni and Mr. Mandlekar that Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, only confers the power to place a telegraph line and post.