P.Balamani v. The District Magistrate and District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore & Ors

2. Since the issued involved in both the writ petitionsis common, they are being disposed of by this common order.3.Petitioners' case in both the petitions is asfollows :a.They own agricultural punja lands to an extent of1.33.5 acres comprised in S. No.308/1 of K. Ayyampalayam,Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District and they do not own anyother agricultural land other than the said lands. Both ofthem purchased the lands in the same survey number out ofthe total extent of 2.67 acres in the year1996. To eke outtheir livelihood, they commenced construction of a poultryshed in their lands. Their husbands are retired employesof a mill and they have no independent income and theirfamilies are depending upon the aforesaid agricultural landto lead a peaceful life. The length of their lands on thesouthern portion is 44 metres and they are valuable lands.b.While so, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited(for short “the Power Grid Corporation”), the secondrespondent had proposed to install high tension power linesthrough the land of one Subbayya Gounder and other personswho are the owners of the petitioners' adjacent lands andit appears that they have influenced the Power GridCorporation to drop the installation of power lines overtheir lands and to alter its plan and also to shift itsroute of transmission alignment across the petitioners'lands. After knowing the action of the respondents inshifting the alignment from the original plan, thepetitioners have sent their objections on 15.06.2006 to therespondents, but, there has been no response to theirobjections and instead, the Power Grid Corporation hastried to enter into their lands for erecting electricitylines. Aggrieved by the action of the Power GridCorporation, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.38812 of 2006 in which this Court passed an order dated18.01.2007, directing the Power Grid Corporation toapproach the District Magistrate and further directed theDistrict Magistrate to consider the objections and passorders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Power GridCorporation moved the District Magistrate for permission tocarry on the work of installation of towers. But, theDistrict Magistrate, without following the order of thisCourt in true spirit, has passed the impugned order on10.04.2007 which is non-speaking in nature, contrary to theprovisions of law and without assigning any reason foroverruling the petitioners' objections. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Aggrieved over the above order of the DistrictCollector, these writ petitions have been filed on variousgrounds that :ithe first respondent has gone wrong in notfurnishing the copy of the application made by thesecond respondent ; iithe first respondent has not considered thepetitioners' objections that the erection of towersin their land would make the entire land unusablefor construction of poultry farm;iiithe alignment deviation is discriminatoryand without jurisdiction; as per sub-rule 2 of Rule3 of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006, the firstrespondent has to fix the compensation or annualrent or both and without doing so, he cannot proceedand he has failed to follow the provisions of theWorks of Licensee Rules, 2006 while passing theimpugned order which is unsustainable; and ivthe first respondent has not considered thepetitioners' objections properly and shifting ofalignment is an act of mala fide and arbitraryexercise of powers.5. A counter has been filed by the District Collector,stating as follows :(a) The petitioners had filed W.P.Nos.38812 and 38848 of2006 to restrain the District Collector, Coimbatore, and thePower Grid Corporation of India from interfering with theirpossession and enjoyment of the land comprised in S.F.No.308/1of K.Ayyampalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore Districtand this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 18.01.2007 haddirected the Power Grid Corporation to approach the DistrictMagistrate for permission to deal with the objections raised andalso directed the District Magistrate to consider the objectionsand pass orders in accordance with the provisions of theElectricity Act 2003 and the Telegraph Act 1885.(b) The petitioners again filed W.P.Nos.15739 of 2007and 15740 of 2007 against the orders passed by the DistrictMagistrate and District Collector, Coimbatore, for thepermission granted to the erection of High Tension Power lineand construction of tower by Power Grid Corporation inS.F.No.308/1 of K.Ayyampalayam Village owned by the respectivepetitioners.(c) He has perused the records and written statementfiled by the land owners and the officials of the Corporationand enquired them on 26.02.2007 and 06.03.2007 after having a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detailed enquiry and based on the discussions with the officialsof Power Grid Corporation and the land owners. The land ownershad produced no evidence to prove malafide in change ofalignment of line and the Corporation had recorded that thealignment was not changed either. Therefore, he passed an orderdated 10.04.2007 under Section 16 (1) of Indian Telegraph Actoverruling the objections of the petitioners herein after alsoanalysing the technical feasibility for change of alignment andonly then permitted the Corporation to take the power linethrough the land owned by the petitioners as per currentalignment.(d) The objections of the writ petitioners wereoverruled as they were not supported by evidence and in theinterest of greater public purpose to enable the Corporation forerection of electric tower lines through the land belonging tothe writ petitioners. (e) Therefore, the order dated 10.04.2007 is notarbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and issustainable; the objections of the petitioners were overruledonly after considering and analysing the technicalfeasibilities; a detailed enquiry was conducted wherein thepetitioners had participated and after considering all theaspects of the case, the order was passed and hence, the WritPetitions are liable to be dismissed.6. A counter has been filed by the Power GridCorporation, stating that : a.It is the Central Transmission Utility under theMinistry of Power and has been entrusted with theconstruction of Udumalpet to Arasur 400 KV D/C PowerTransmission Line comprising 189 towers with a length of65.116 kms. under Neyveli Thermal Station Stage – IIexpansion project, a scheme duly approved by the Governmentof India to provide quality power at large with greaterreliability particularly to theagricultural/residential/commercial establishments for theState of Tamil Nadu in general and villages of Udumalpetand Arasur in particular and will be a big boost to theindustrial and agricultural growth in the State. b.It is executing the project after observing alllegal procedures under the provisions of the IndianElectricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the Works ofLicensees Rules, 2006 to the extent applicable;c.The foundation work has been completed at 108locations out of 189 towers and erection of towers is inprogress and in respect of the remaining, the project is tobe completed and commissioned by January 2008 as perschedule; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ d.The Government of India, in exercise of powersconferred by sub-section (1) of Section 38 of theElectricity Act, 2003 (Act 36 of 2003) had notified it asthe Central Transmission Utility vide Notification dated27.11.2003 published vide Gazette of India No.1084 dated04.12.2003 and as per Section 14 of the Electricity Act,Central Transmission Utility shall be deemed to be aTransmission Licensee under the Act; as per Section 164 ofthe Electricity Act, 2003, the appropriate Government, mayby order in writing, for the placing of electric lines orelectrical plant for the transmission of electricity,confer upon the licensee any of the powers which theTelegraph Authority possesses under the Indian TelegraphAct, 1885.e.Also, the Government of India, in exercise ofpowers conferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act,2003, has passed an order dated 24.12.2003 vide Gazette ofIndia No.1148 authorizing it to exercise all powers vestedin the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the IndianTelegraph Act, 1885 in respect of electrical lines andelectrical plants established or maintained fortransmission of electricity or for the purpose oftelephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for theproper coordination of work;f.As per Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, it is not necessary to issue personal notice or toget prior consent from the private land owners and as perSection 10(c) of the said Act, if the property is vested inor under the control of any local authority, then, it isnecessary for the petitioner to get permission from suchauthority;g.The above provisions have been scrupulouslyfollowed by it and while fixing the transmission lineroute, only the most techno-economically feasible route ischosen causing least damage after complying with thestatutory clearances and avoiding places of inhabitation,worship and densely populated areas and in the case of thepetitioners, while the transmission line requires a clearcorridor of 48 metres only, i.e. 24 metres on either sidefrom the centre of the transmission line, all crops can becultivated and fruit-bearing trees of short height can begrown and buildings can be put up by maintaining sufficientsafety electric clearance as per the Electricity Rules; thetransmission line would not have any impact on humanbeings, animals, plants, etc. or on the geological orecological system beyond the statutory clearance/normsprovided by the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ h.The whole process undertaken by it is for publicpurpose and any re-alignment of this line at this advancedstage is not at all techno-economically feasible and anydelay in completion and commissioning of the project wouldenhance the cost of the project which would have a directimpact on the power tariff and result in hike in the costof power per unit burdening the common man and it wouldalso adversely affect the economic status of the State ofTamil Nadu and the entire nation, besides causing heavyloss to the Government Exchequer;i.The petitioners without understanding theimportance of the major project undertaken by it and onlywith a view to drag on the matter and for their personalbenefits, have filed these writ petitions;j.The statements of the petitioners in paragraph 3of the affidavit that they intend to utilise the land forconstruction of a poultry shed and in paragraph 4 that theyhail from agricultural family, their husbands are retiredemployees of a mill and have no independent income gocontrary to one another;k.As per the order of this Court dated 18.01.2007passed in a batch of writ petitions, the petitioners weregiven opportunity of hearing and all the above facts andthe importance of the project have been published in astatement of defence before the District Magistrate andDistrict Collector ;l.While recommending the route, it tries to avoiderection of towers and drawing of line through villages,temples, historical places, forest areas, etc. and nopreference is given to any individual's land as alleged bythe petitioners; the route is being followed as per thedetailed survey conducted during May 2005; the objectionsgiven by the petitioners culminated in filing of W.P.No.38848 of 2006 before this Court which was disposed of on18.01.2007 and in view of the above facts, it has got theright to enter upon any land for the purpose ofimplementation of the project as per the provisions of theIndian Telegraph Act.m.Taking into account the cost of the project andthe industrial growth and power management, it hasoverruled the objections of the petitioners which are notgermane and the first respondent has exercised his powersas contemplated under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act; n.By exercising its power vested under the IndianTelegraph Act, it has entered into the petitioners' landsonly for the purpose of laying the tower and the lands canbe fully utilised by the land owners and the laying of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tower by them will not render their lands unusable and theland owners can cultivate crops, grow trees and put upbuilding construction by maintaining sufficient safety andthis has been taken into account as per the ElectricityRules as the transmission line requires only 48 metres,i.e. 24 metres on either side;o.There is no deviation from the original route andthe same is being executed as per the original approval andthe question of paying compensation would arise only in theevent of land being acquired and moreover, compensationwould be paid only for the trees/crops, if any, damagedduring the execution of the work as assessed by the revenueauthorities;p.The cost of the project is estimated at Rs.632crores and transmission lines are being laid for augmentingpower supply to the southern States; the works were inprogress and it was engaged in the work of excavation forthe foundation for laying the transmission tower/line;q.Since the balance of convenience is in its favourand the project involves national importance, the writpetitions have to be dismissed.7. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the petitioners, has contended that the first respondentwent wrong in passing a non-speaking order by simply recordingthe contentions of the respective parties and not recording thereasons for rejecting the objections of the petitioners; heought to have considered the objections of the petitioners thatthe erection of Towers in the land belonging to the petitionerswould make the entire land measuring an extent of 2.67 acresunusable for construction of poultry farm, house and for otheragricultural purposes. He further contended that the firstrespondent failed to see that the petitioners cannot eithercultivate the land or run the poultry farm in the event of theelectricity poles being erected in their land, as the length ofthe land is only 44 metres; the first respondent ought to haveseen that in the original proposal for erection of electriclines, the land comprised in S.No.308/2, which belonged to oneSubbayya Gounder, was taken over and bowing to the pressureexerted by the said Subbayya Gounder, the second respondentchanged the alignment of the Transmission line by deviating intothe petitioners' land, which is discriminatory and without anyjustification.8. It is the further contention of the learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioners that the first respondent ought tohave seen that as per sub rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Works ofLicensee Rules 2006, he has to fix the compensation or annualrent or both, which should in his opinion be paid by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ licensee to the owner or occupier; but he has not fixed theamount of compensation or annual rent as mandated by theprovisions of the Works of Licensee Rules 2006; the firstrespondent also went wrong in not considering the undisputedfact that the second respondent had earmarked the locations forconstruction of proposed towers after conducting preliminarysurvey and detailed surveys were conducted thrice whereby thealignment should have passed through the land of petitioners'neighbours and thereafter without assigning any reasons, thesecond respondent altered his plan by shifting the alignment oftransmission lines which is an act of mala fide and arbitraryexercise of power; but the first respondent, withoutappreciating this fact, has erroneously overruled the objection.Therefore, learned Senior Counsel strongly contended that theorder passed by the first respondent is not sustainable and thesame has to be quashed.9. In support of his contentions, learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioners has cited the following decisions :(i)AIR 1963 SC 375, State of Mysore and others vs.Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur :"3...For a correct appreciation of theposition, it is necessary to repeat what has oftenbeen said that tribunals exercising quasi-judicialfunctions are not Courts and that therefore they arenot bound to follow the procedures prescribed fortrial of actions in Courts nor are they bound bystrict rules of evidence. They can, unlike Courts,obtain all information material for the points underenquiry from all sources and through all channels,without being fettered by rules and procedure whichgovern proceedings in Court. The only obligationwhich the law casts on them is that they should notact on any information which they may receive unlessthey put it to the party against whom it is to beused and given him a fair opportunity to explain it.What is a fair opportunity must depend on the factsand circumstances of each case but where such anopportunity had been given, the proceedings are notopen to attack on the ground that the enquiry wasnot conducted in accordance with the procedurefollowed in Courts.ii. AIR 1969 SC 48, Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union ofIndia : “8. If the power exercised by the Collector wasa quasi-judicial power-as we hold it to be-thatpower cannot be controlled by the directions issuedby the Board. No authority however high placed cancontrol the decision of a judicial or a quasi- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judicial authority. That is the essence of ourjudicial system. There is no provision in the Actempowering the Board to issue directions to theassessing authorities or the appellate authoritiesin the matter of deciding disputes between thepersons who are called upon to pay duty and thedepartment. It is true that the assessingauthorities as well as the appellate authorities arejudges in their own cause; yet when they are calledupon to decide disputes arising under the Act theymust act independently and impartially. They cannotbe said to act independently if their judgment iscontrolled by the directions given by others. Thenit is a misnomer to call their orders as theirjudgments; they would essentially be the judgmentsof the authority that gave the directions and whichauthority had given those judgments without hearingthe aggrieved party. The only provision under whichthe Board can issue directions is Rule 233 of theRules framed under the Act. The rule says that theBoard and the Collectors may issue writteninstructions providing for any supplemental mattersarising out of these Rules. Under this rule, theonly instruction that the Board can issue is thatrelating to administrative matters; otherwise thatrule will have to be considered as ultra viresSection 35 of the Act.(iii)AIR 1990 SC 1984, S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union ofIndia :" 34.The decisions of this Court referredto above indicate that with regard to the requirementto record reasons the approach of this Court is morein line with that of the American Courts. Animportant consideration which was weighed with theCourt for holding that an administrative authorityexercising quasi-judicial functions must record thereasons for its decision, is that such a decision issubject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Courtunder Article 136 of the Constitution as well as thesupervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts underArticle 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons,if recorded, would enable this Court or the HighCourts to effectively exercise the appellate orsupervisory power. But this is not the soleconsideration. The other considerations which havealso weighed with the Court in taking this view arethat the requirement of recording reasons would (i)guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii)introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimisechances of arbitrariness in decision-making. In thisregard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercisingjudicial functions on the ground that a Judge istrained to look at things objectively uninfluenced byconsiderations of policy or expediency whereas anexecutive officer generally looks at things from thestand point of policy and expediency.35.Reasons, when recorded by an administrativeauthority in an order passed by it while exercisingquasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitatethe exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate orsupervisory authority. But the other considerations,referred to above, which have also weighed with thisCourt in holding that an administrative authority mustrecord reasons for its decision are of no lesssignificance. These considerations show that therecording of reasons by an administrative authorityserves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chancesof arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness inthe process of decisions-making. The said purposewould apply equally to all decisions and itsapplication cannot be confined to decisions which aresubject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Inour opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasonsbe recorded should govern the decisions of anadministrative authority exercising quasi-judicialfunctions irrespective of the fact whether thedecision is subject to appeal, revision or judicialreview. It may, however, be added that it is norequired that the reasons should be as elaborate as inthe decision of a Court of law. The extent and natureof the reasons would depend on particular facts andcircumstances. What is necessary is that the reasonsare clear and explicit so as to indicate that theauthority has given due consideration to the points incontroversy. The need for recording of reasons isgreater in a case where the order is passed at theoriginal stage. The appellate or revisionalauthority, if it affirms such an order, need not giveseparate reasons if the appellate or revisionalauthority agrees with the reasons contained in theorder under challenge."(iv)AIR 1998 Kerala 124, Valsamma Thomas vs.Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha and another :"12.Thus, on review of the authorities of thisquestion, we come to the following conclusions:(1)The District Magistrate has to exercise hisdiscretion judicially.(2)He has to pass the order under Section 16(1) of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Telegraph Act, after hearing the parties and aftertaking such evidence as is required with regard to theobjections raised.(3)The order passed by the court should be a speakingorder.(4)The order should reflect the objections raised bythe parties and the reasons given by theMagistrate for accepting or rejecting the same.(5)The order should also reflect the materials reliedon by the District Magistrate for arriving atthe conclusion.If the discretion is exercised by the DistrictMagistrate as above, then unless it is shown that thefindings are perverse or that the proceedings arevitiated by mala fides this Court will not bejustified in interfering with such orders. This Courtwill not be justified in substituting its own opinion.It is also worth bearing in mind that this Court hasnot got technical expertise and will be slow tointerfere with such matters."(v) (2003) 4 SCC 557, Canara Bank and others vs. DebasisDas and others : " 19. Concept of natural justice has undergone agreat deal of change in recent years. Rules ofnatural justice are not rules embodied alwaysexpressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder.They may be implied from the nature of the duty to beperformed under a statute. What particular rule ofnatural justice should be implied and what its contextshould be in a given case must depend to a grantextent on the facts and circumstances of that case,the framework of the statute under which the enquiryis held. The old distinction between a judicial actand an administrative act has withered away. Even anadministrative order which involves civil consequencesmust be consistent with the rules of natural justice.The expression "civil consequences" encompassesinfraction of not merely property or personal rightsbut of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comeseverything that affects a citizen in his civil life."10. Per contra, Mr.Hasan Fazal, learned GovernmentAdvocate, appearing for the first respondent/District Collectorhas contended that the District Collector, who is also aMagistrate under the Act, has considered the entire objections https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raised by the petitioners independently and rejected theobjections and further directed the Corporation to proceed withthe erection of H.T.Power Lines. The learned Government Advocatefurther submitted that the land owners had not produced anyevidence to prove malafide in change of alignment of line.Therefore, the District Collector has passed an order underSection 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, overruling theobjections of the petitioners, after analysing the technicalfeasibility for change of alignment and permitting theCorporation to take the power line through the land owned by thepetitioners as per current alignment. He strengthened hissubmissions on "eminent domain" and in the interest of greaterpublic purposes, the individual interest cannot be against itand the authorities have every right to take note of the publicinterest over the individual interest. Therefore, there is noinfirmity in the orders passed by the District Collector and thesame cannot be interfered with.11. On the other hand, Mr.Jayesh Dolia, learned counselappearing for the second respondent Corporation, has strenuouslycontended that the Corporation is the Central TransmissionUtility under the Ministry of Power and has been entrusted withthe Project to provide quality power at large with greaterreliability particularly to the agricultural, residential andcommercial establishments for the State of Tamil Nadu and it isexecuting the project after observing all legal procedures underthe provisions of the Act and the Rules. He also submitted thatin the entire section of the project, foundation work has beencompleted at 108 locations and erection of towers is in progressand it is a time bound project to be completed by January,2008as per schedule and because of the pendency of the writpetitions, they could not proceed further. The learned counselmade a point that the Government of India, in exercise of powersconferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, haspassed an order dated 24.12.2003 to exercise all powers vestedin the Telegraph Authority in respect of electrical lines andelectrical plants established or maintained for transmission ofelectricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphiccommunication necessary for the proper coordination of work. Asper Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is notnecessary to issue personal notice or to get prior consent fromthe private land owners and as per Section 10(c) of the saidAct, if the property is vested in or under the control of anylocal authority, then, it is necessary for the petitioner to getpermission from such authority. He vehemently contended that thetransmission line route is as per the experts opinion and themost techno-economically feasible route is chosen causing leastdamage after complying with the statutory clearances andavoiding places of inhabitation, worship and densely populatedareas, including the geological or ecological system.Therefore, the whole process undertaken by the Corporation isfor a public purpose and any re-alignment of this line at this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ advanced stage is not at all techno-economically feasible andany delay in completing the project or alteration in route willcause heavy loss to the Government exchequer. Hence, in theabsence of any valid reasons to object to the erection oftransmission lines and when there is larger public interestinvolved in the project and also there is no damage to theproperties of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot stall theproject by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.12. In support of their contentions, learned counselfor the respondents cited the following decisions :(i)AIR 1972 Kerala 47, Bharat Plywood and Timber ProductsPrivate Ltd. vs. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum andothers :"23. It is clear from the wording of Section 16and particularly from the expression "the DistrictMagistrate may, in his discretion", that an order willnot be forthcoming automatically. A DistrictMagistrate may in his discretion in a given caserefuse or decline to pass an order that the telegraphauthority shall be permitted to exercise the powers.The wording is significant. The District Magistratedoes not grant permission to the authority. But, heorders that the authority "shall be permitted." Thediscretion conferred by the section on the DistrictMagistrate is certainly a judicial discretion, and, incases where the District Magistrate refuses to pass anorder that the telegraph authority shall be permittedto exercise the powers mentioned in Section 10, it isinconceivable that the telegraph authority may,notwithstanding such refusal, continue to exercisesuch powers. The wording of the section is thusitself indicative of the fact that in cases ofresistance or obstruction the District Magistrate willhave to decide whether the authority should bepermitted or not to exercise the powers under Section16 of the Telegraph Act. This necessarily means thatthe telegraph authority cannot override or ignore theresistance or obstruction and continue to exercise thepowers under Section 10 notwithstanding suchresistance or obstruction. It follows that, when anowner or occupier resists or obstructs the exercise ofthe power under Section 10, the telegraph authoritywill have to approach the District Magistrate for anorder under sub-section (1) of an order under sub-section (1) of S.16 and can exercise the power underSection 10 only in cases where the District Magistratedeems it fit to pass an order that he shall bepermitted to do so. The power conferred by Section 10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is thus a conditional power; conditional on an orderbeing passed under Section 16(1) by the DistrictMagistrate that the authority may be permitted, incase of resistance or obstruction, to exercise thepower. This is so not only in regard to a telegraphauthority but to the public officer or any otherperson authorised under the Electricity Act. " (ii) 1994 WLR 445, M.Nithyanandam and two others vs. TheChairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras-2 and others :" 26.The above section, in my opinion,gives authority for placing the poles or the towers ina private land and clause (d) referred to aboveprovides for payment of compensation. S.16(1)provides for the Board approaching the DistrictMagistrate in case of resistance by the owner. S.16(3) provides for the mode for fixing the compensationin case of dispute regarding the sufficiency of thecompensation.27.In the light of the non-obstante clause inS.42, excluding in categoric terms the applicabilityof Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the IndianElectricity Act, 1910, in any considered opinion, itis not open to the petitioners to rely on S.12 of theIndian Electricity Act, 1910. As stated above, thepetitioners strongly relied on the decision reportedin 1959 (II) MLJ 446. In that case, Basheer AhmedSayeed, J., was pleased to deal only with the scope ofS.12. The scope of S.42 was apparently not brought tothe notice of the learned Judge. Therefore, thepetitioners herein cannot call in aid the saiddecision.28.It was argued by Mr.A.Venkatesan, learnedcounsel for the petitioners, that the learned Judgehad observed in the above decision that only apparatusand appliances to be placed and high tension wirecannot at all be used or put up. The petitionerscannot rely upon the observations made by the learnedJudge. Provisions of S.42 are very clear and at theend of the 20th century, it is no longer open toanybody to contend the high tension towers cannot beput up."(iii)AIR 1995 Kerala 1, A.M.Ismail and others etc.,vs. Union of India and others :"8.On a survey of these authorities, it is clearthat the District Magistrate is discharging anadministrative function and the general principle ofnatural justice and other procedural regulations wouldapply. The contention of the petitioners that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Magistrate is given unlimited power and,therefore, the said provision is illegal cannot beaccepted. The District Magistrate hears objectors andconsider whether the objections raised by the propertyowners are reasonable. If the District Magistrate isof the view that it is not proper to draw line throughthe objections' property he shall decline permissionto draw line through their property. If, on the otherhand, the District Magistrate, finds that theobjectors are raising frivolous objectors, theDistrict Magistrate is competent to rule out suchobjections and direct the authorities to draw theproposed line. Therefore, I do not find that Section16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is in any wayviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 10.Coming to the facts of the cases, petitioners'objection is that there are alternate lines and thiswas not considered by the District Magistrate. It maybe noticed that this line was proposed in 1992 andbecause of the obstruction it could not be drawn. Theproposal is to draw 3 K.M. Long 11 K.V. Line for thepurpose of voltage improvement and by the proposedscheme about 400 persons are benefited. There is alsoproposal to instal a transformer at Edayirickapuzha.Most of the petitioners are also benefited by theproposed line. It is true that some of thepetitioners will have to suffer a little inconvenienceby the drawal of these lines. But considering thebenefit that may derive to the consumers, theobjections raised by the petitioners are not weightyand the District Magistrate rightly overruled theseobjections. The question was elaborately consideredby the District Magistrate rightly overruled theseobjections. The question was elaborately consideredby the District Magistrate and the alternatesuggestion to construct the line along the public roadwas also found not feasible. It is also pointed outthat the route is by the side of a thodu and thepetitioners are not seriously affected in the sensethat their trees are not to be cut and removed to agreater extent."(iv)AIR 1997 Madras 64, E.Venkatesan and others vs.Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras and others :"20. In this case, the fact that there was anotification in 1961 is not a matter in dispute.Subsequently proceedings have been issued by the firstrespondent on 18.12.1993 whereby the scheme wasapproved, and it was also declared that the Board will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exercise power of Telegraph Authority under Section 45of the Electricity Supply Act, and, therefore, theElectricity Board shall not be bound by the provisionsof Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the IndianElectricity Act, 1910. In view of the notificationand also the approved Scheme, no argument can be putforward by the petitioners that the officers of theElectricity Board are not entitled to enter theproperty or to draw the electric line. Once the powerunder the Telegraphs Act is given to the publicofficers of the Board, they are also entitled to digpits and also instal towers over the property. Thequestion of consent from the petitioners does notarise for consideration, nor is it required underlaw."(v)A decision of the Division Bench of this Court inW.A.No.572 of 2001 in the case of The Chairman, Power GridCorporation of India Ltd. and another vs. Vivasaya VizhipunarvuIyakkam :"4.Mr.Dolia, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellants says that the direction by thelearned single Judge is beyond the scope of Section 10of the Telegraphs Act. He says that the Act nowhereprovides that while erecting the lines, thecompensation should be decided in advance, and thenalone the trees should be cut, whereas, therespondents herein and the original petitioners beforethe learned single Judge very earnestly point out thatonce the trees are cut, there would be no question offirstly their identification and secondly about aproper compensation being decided upon, as in thatcase, the concerned authorities would not have,anything available to know about the age and capacityof yield, etc."(vi)An unreported judgment of this Court inW.P.Nos.49172 of 2006, etc. batch of cases :"22. In at least one writ petition, it iscontended that instead of the transmission towersbeing installed in a straight line, there is adeviation. For this, there may be perfectlyjustifiable technical explanation on the side of theCorporation. This project has been conceived bytechnical experts, and considering the magnitude ofthe project and the fact that it covers large extentof land running through many districts, the minordeviations that the petitioner alleges must beignored. However, it is the jurisdiction of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Magistrate to consider the objections, andit will be possible for the objector as well as theCorporation to explain before the District Magistratethe manner in which the land lies and prove eitherthat the erection of the transmission towers isimproper or that the erection of the towers has beendone in the optimum manner possible and that therecould be no other way of doing it."(vii) A recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in(2007) 1 SCC 641 in the matter of Daulat Singh Surana & othersvs. First Land Acquisition Collector and others : “68. The right of eminent domain is the right ofthe State to reassert either temporarily orpermanently its dominion over any piece of land onaccount of public exigency and for public good.74. The power of compulsory acquisition asdescribed by the term “eminent domain” can beexercised only in the interest and for the welfare ofthe people. The concept of public purpose shouldinclude the matters, such as, safety, security,health, welfare and prosperity of the community orpublic at large.75. The concept of “eminent domain” is anessential attribute of every State. This concept isbased on the fundamental principle that the interestand claim of the whole community is always superior tothe interest of an individual.”13. Heard the learned counsel for the respectiveparties and perused the material available on record, therelevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and also thedecisions cited by the counsel for the parties.14. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited hasbeen entrusted with the construction of Udumalpet to Arasur 400KV D/C Power Transmission Line comprising 189 towers with alength of 65.116 kms. under Neyveli Thermal Station Stage-IIexpansion project. This project has been approved by theGovernment of India to provide quality power at large withgreater reliability particularly to the agricultural,residential and commercial establishments for the State of TamilNadu in general and the villages of that area in particular toboost the growth in the State. The Power Grid Corporation isan authority to execute the project after observing all legalprocedures and as per the existing provisions of the ElectricityAct,2003 and under the provisions of the Indian TelegraphAct,1885 and also under the relevant rules. It appears that theproject work has commenced and it is a time bound project. Out https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of 189 towers in the entire area, foundation work has beencompleted at 108 locations and erection of towers is in progressand the project is to be completed by January,2008, as perschedule. As per Section 14 of the Electricity Act,2003,Central Transmission Utility shall be deemed to be aTransmission Licensee and as per Section 164 of the Act, theappropriate Government may by order in writing for the placingof electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission ofelectricity confer upon the Licensee any of the powers which theTelegraph Authority possesses. Accordingly, the Power GridCorporation has been entrusted with the power to exercise allthe powers in respect of electrical lines and electrical plantsestablished or maintained for transmission of electricity or forthe proper co-ordination of work. 15. As per Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, itis not necessary to issue personal notice or get prior consentfrom the private land owners and as per Section 10 (c), if theproperty is vested in or under the control of any localauthority, it is necessary for the petitioner to get permissionfrom such authority.16. It appears that the project has been taken over andthe route finalised on expert opinion and also taking note ofthe techno-economically feasible route and it is causing leastdamage after complying with the statutory clearances. Further,the viability of erecting such a transmission line takes themost techno-economically feasible route avoiding places ofinhabitation, worship and densely populated areas. It is seenthat since the transmission line requires a clear corridor of 48metres only i.e., 24 metres on either side from the centre ofthe transmission line, all crops can be cultivated and fruitbearing trees of short height can be grown and building put upby maintaining sufficient safety electric clearance as per theElectricity Rules,1956, and this transmission line would nothave any impact on human beings, animals, plants etc. or on thegeological or ecological system beyond the statutory clearance.Therefore, the whole process undertaken by the respondent is fora public purpose and any re-alignment of this line at thisadvanced stage is not at all techno-economically feasible.17. Earlier, these writ petitioners moved this Court ina batch of Writ Petitions before exhausting the remedy under therelevant provisions of the Act. On a careful consideration ofthe matter and upon perusing the entire materials, this Courtpassed an order on 18.01.2007 in W.P.No.49172 of 2006 and otherconnected matters and disposed of all the petitions with thefollowing direction :"The Power Grid Corporation shall, asearly as it deems fit, approach the DistrictMagistrate concerned in each case for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permission to deal with the objections raisedby the petitioners in each case and the saidDistrict Magistrate shall consider theobjections and pass orders in accordance withthe provisions which have been extractedabove. This project involves huge expenditureand therefore, we cannot permit any avoidabledelay. The petitioners cannot think that byavoiding any notice or summons from theDistrict Magistrate, they can indefinitelydelay the matter. Immediately on receipt ofthe request by the Corporation for permission,the District Magistrate shall issue notice tothe respective objectors and after hearingtheir objections, shall pass orders inaccordance with law, within a period of sixweeks from the date on which the Corporationmakes a request for permission to the DistrictMagistrate."18. Based on the above directions, the DistrictCollector has proceeded under the provisions of Section 16 (1)of the Indian Telegraph Act to hear the objections of thepetitioners along with the submissions of the Power GridCorporation. An enquiry was conducted on 26.02.2007 and theobjectors filed their written submissions so also theCorporation. 19. The learned District Magistrate, after goingthrough the written submissions filed by both the land ownersand the Corporation, held as follows :"I have gone through the writtenstatement filed by the land owners and thePower Grid Corporation of India Limited. Theland owners apprehension of malafide in thealignment is found baseless. The aboveproject is being carried out for industrialgrowth and power management in CoimbatoreDistrict. I find no valid reasons tointerfere in the laying of power line byPower Grid Corporation of India Limited inrespect of the objectors land.As per the powers conferred underSection 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act1855, I overrule the objections raised by theland owner and allow the Chief Manager PowerGrid Corporation Limited, Coimbatore, to takethe line through the land in S.F.No.308/1 ofK.Ayyampalayam village of Palladam Taluk asplanned."20. The above orders of the District Collector areunder challenge in these Writ Petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. The main controversy that centres around is,whether the the District Collector has considered the objectionsin the light of the directions of this Court and also in themanner known to law.22. This Court is not an expert body to go into thefeasibility or non-feasibility of the transmission lines to beerected and the factual matrix controverted to by the parties inmaking alignment of route of transmission lines and also toconsider the alternate alignment in the light of the objectionsof the petitioners. This Court is duty bound to examine whetherthe order passed by the District Collector is in conformity withthe law laid down; the procedure adopted by the authorities; themanner in which the enquiry was conducted and also whether thedecision taken by the Collector is in accordance with law. 23. A strenuous argument was advanced by the learnedcounsel for the petitioners that the first respondent has not atall assigned any reasons to reject the objections, when they aresubstantial and have to be taken note of. 24. There is no whisper in the impugned order about theconsideration of the objections by the District Collector andthe statement of the Corporation and finally the order waspassed without assigning reasons and with total non-applicationof mind.25. A careful analysis of the impugned proceedingspassed by the District Magistrate/District Collector, pursuantto the orders of this Court, would go to show that they are non-speaking orders, as the District Magistrate has not at all goneinto the objections in detail to consider the sameindependently, by applying his mind. Reasoning is the heartbeatof every conclusion and without the same, the conclusion becomeslifeless. The rationale behind it is that the affected party canknow why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutaryrequirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for theorder made. Therefore, I am not inclined to go into the otheraspects of the matter, which the learned counsel on either sidehave advanced their arguments. I am only inclined to interferewith the impugned orders, as they are non-speaking ones. Assuch, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside,remitting the matters back to the District Collector forconsideration.26. While doing so, this Court is conscious of theimportance of the project, involving huge amount, for thebenefit of the public at large and its time boundedness.Therefore, I direct the District Magistrate, Coimbatore, toconsider the objections of the parties and pass orders, givingreasonings, within a period of four weeks from today. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ open to the parties to these proceedings to agitate all otherissues, if any, over which they are aggrieved, if they sodesire. The time factor indicated in this order has to bestrictly adhered to, taking note of the causing of delay in theproject.27. Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The District Magistrate and District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore2.The Chief Engineer Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise) No.3, First Floor, PMR Layout Extension Civil Aerodrome (Post) Coimbatore – 641 014+ 2 ccs to M/s. Aiyar and Dolia, Advocate SR No. 14815+ 2 ccs to Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Advocate SR No. 14415 W.P.Nos.15739 & 15740/2007KU(CO)SR/17.3.2008