Minor Vignesh Kanniayaram v. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

For respondents 1 to 3 :Mr.Jayesh Doliafor M/s.Aiyar & Dolia For respondent 4 :Mr. Hasan FazalGovernment AdvocateO R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed by one Minor VigneshKanniayaram represented by his mother and natural guardian Dr.T. Chandrakala, challenging the proceedings of the DistrictMagistrate and District Collector, Coimbatore, dated09.05.2007, in and by which the objections of the petitionerfor erection of High Tension Transmission lines over the landsof the petitioner were overruled.2.The petitioner's case is as follows :iPetitioner is the owner of the lands inS.Nos.504, 506/1, 507/1, 508, 509 and 516/1 ofKarumathampatti Village, Palladam Taluk, CoimbatoreDistrict which were to be used for the purpose ofstarting an educational institution and which are highlyvaluable lands. While so, the respondents 1 to 3, throughtheir subordinates, started to trespass upon thepetitioner's lands, took measurements and madepreparations for the erection of high towers for hightension transmission line. On enquiry, the petitionercame to know that the lines were not originally passingthrough his lands but were due to pass over other landsto the north west of the petitioner and due to theirinfluence and stature, the lines were shifted to comeacross his lands. Hence, he raised his objections butthe same were not considered nor his consent was sought.Thus, when the respondents were about to take up theworks of erecting the towers across the petitioner'slands, finding no other alternative, the petitioner movedthis Court in W.P. No.1404 of 2007 which was disposed ofwith directions to the District Collector, Coimbatore,the fourth respondent to hear and pass orders on hisobjections. Accordingly, the fourth respondent conductedhearings but failed in the hearings to go into thedetailed objections and suggestions of the petitioner andaccepted the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 treating theeconomic viability of the transmission line alone andforgetting that the petitioner would be put to grave lossand lose the right over the lands. Added to this, thefourth respondent did not even go into the question ofcompensation or damages for laying of the lines andpassed an order on 09.05.2007 against which this writpetition has been filed on various grounds that:iithe fourth respondent has not taken intoconsideration the loss and damage caused to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and has not exercised the power under theprovisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885;iiithe rights of the citizens have not at allbeen considered and the petitioner's legitimate rightscannot be taken away in such a callous manner;ivthe fourth respondent has erred in takinginto account the techno-economic feasibility of thetransmission line project alone ignoring the loss anddamages caused to the petitioner;vthe alignment has been deviated in order toavoid the lands of some influential persons and thisdeviation in alignment has resulted in the severing ofthe petitioner's lands and if the transmission line istaken through the petitioner's lands, they cannot beused for any other purpose.3. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their counter,stating that:a.After taking into consideration theirstatement of defence and after hearing the objections ofthe petitioner, the fourth respondent, by his order dated09.05.2007, exercising his power under Section 16(1) ofthe Telegraph Act, overruled the petitioner's objectionsand directed them to proceed with the line through thepetitioner's lands as planned pursuant to which they havestarted executing the work;b.on 19.05.2007, the petitioner's mother came tothe site and prevented them from proceeding with the workand hence, they lodged a complaint at KarumathampattyPolice Station against the petitioner's mother anddespite the same, the henchmen deployed by thepetitioner's mother interfered with their execution ofwork everyday with a view to delay the progress in workand once again, a police complaint was lodged on23.05.2007;c.there is no possibility for damage and dangerwith regard to high tension transmission line which wouldnot have any impact on human beings, animals, plants,etc. or on the geological or ecological system beyond thestatutory clearance/norms provided by the ElectricityRules, 1956; andd.Inasmuch as the transmission line requiresonly a clear corridor of 48 metres i.e. 24 metres oneither side from the centre of the transmission line, allcrops can be cultivated and fruit-bearing trees of shortheight can be grown and building put up by maintainingsufficient safety electric clearance as per the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Electricity Rules and as such, the writ petition has tobe dismissed considering the national importance involvedin the project.4. Mr.R.Thyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the petitioner, has contended that the line over the landof the petitioner, as seen from the sketch shows that the linehas been deliberately taken in a zig zag manner and it hasbeen unnecessarily bent for the sole reason of taking it overthe boundary of his lands, thereby denying the right to theproperty for which appropriate damages have to be paid. Hehas also argued that since the Power Grid Corporation hasignored the damages that would be caused to the petitioner,mere payment of compensation alone will not protect him fromdamages and loss and accordingly prayed for restraining thePower Grid Corporation from entering into the petitioner'slands. He further contended that the District Collector hasnot independently considered all the objections of thepetitioner and also the existence of temple and therefore theimpugned order is liable to be set aside.5. In support of his contentions, learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioner 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 hasoften been said that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not Courts and thattherefore they are not bound to follow theprocedures prescribed for trial of actions inCourts nor are they bound by strict rules ofevidence. They can, unlike Courts, obtain allinformation material for the points under enquiryfrom all sources and through all channels,without being fettered by rules and procedurewhich govern proceedings in Court. The onlyobligation which the law casts on them is thatthey should not act on any information which theymay receive unless they put it to the partyagainst whom it is to be used and given him afair opportunity to explain it. What is a fairopportunity must depend on the facts andcircumstances of each case but where such anopportunity had been given, the proceedings arenot open to attack on the ground that the enquirywas not conducted in accordance with theprocedure followed in Courts.ii. AIR 1969 SC 48, Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union ofIndia : “8. If the power exercised by the Collectorwas a quasi-judicial power-as we hold it to be-that power cannot be controlled by the directions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued by the Board. No authority however highplaced can control the decision of a judicial or aquasi-judicial authority. That is the essence ofour judicial system. There is no provision in theAct empowering the Board to issue directions tothe assessing authorities or the appellateauthorities in the matter of deciding disputesbetween the persons who are called upon to payduty and the department. It is true that theassessing authorities as well as the appellateauthorities are judges in their own cause; yetwhen they are called upon to decide disputesarising under the Act they must act independentlyand impartially. They cannot be said to actindependently if their judgment is controlled bythe directions given by others. Then it is amisnomer to call their orders as their judgments;they would essentially be the judgments of theauthority that gave the directions and whichauthority had given those judgments withouthearing the aggrieved party. The only provisionunder which the Board can issue directions is Rule233 of the Rules framed under the Act. The rulesays that the Board and the Collectors may issuewritten instructions providing for anysupplemental matters arising out of these Rules.Under this rule, the only instruction that theBoard can issue is that relating to administrativematters; otherwise that rule will have to beconsidered as ultra vires Section 35 of the Act.(iii)AIR 1990 SC 1984, S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union ofIndia :" 34.The decisions of this Courtreferred to above indicate that with regard to therequirement to record reasons the approach of thisCourt is more in line with that of the AmericanCourts. An important consideration which wasweighed with the Court for holding that anadministrative authority exercising quasi-judicialfunctions must record the reasons for its decision,is that such a decision is subject to the appellatejurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of theConstitution as well as the supervisoryjurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227of the Constitution and that the reasons, ifrecorded, 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) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. In this regard a distinction has beendrawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunalsand authorities exercising judicial functions onthe ground that a Judge is trained to look atthings objectively uninfluenced by considerationsof policy or expediency whereas an executiveofficer generally looks at things from the standpoint 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 appellateor supervisory authority. But the otherconsiderations, referred to above, which have alsoweighed with this Court in holding that anadministrative authority must record reasons forits decision are of no less significance. Theseconsiderations show that the recording of reasonsby an administrative authority serves a salutarypurpose, namely, it excludes chances ofarbitrariness 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 whichare subject to appeal, revision or judicial review.In our opinion, therefore, the requirement thatreasons be recorded should govern the decisions ofan administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whetherthe decision is subject to appeal, revision orjudicial review. It may, however, be added that itis no required that the reasons should be aselaborate as in the decision of a Court of law.The extent and nature of the reasons would dependon particular facts and circumstances. What isnecessary is that the reasons are clear andexplicit so as to indicate that the authority hasgiven 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 notgive separate reasons if the appellate orrevisional authority agrees with the reasonscontained in the order 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 followingconclusions: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1)The District Magistrate has to exercise hisdiscretion judicially.(2)He has to pass the order under Section 16(1) ofthe Telegraph Act, after hearing the parties andafter taking such evidence as is required withregard to the objections raised.(3)The order passed by the court should be aspeaking order.(4)The order should reflect the objections raisedby the parties and the reasons given by theMagistrate for accepting or rejecting the same.(5)The order should also reflect the materialsrelied on by the District Magistrate forarriving at the conclusion.If the discretion is exercised by the DistrictMagistrate as above, then unless it is shown thatthe findings are perverse or that the proceedingsare vitiated by mala fides this Court will not bejustified in interfering with such orders. ThisCourt will not be justified in substituting its ownopinion. It is also worth bearing in mind thatthis Court has not got technical expertise and willbe slow to interfere with such matters."(v) (2003) 4 SCC 557, Canara Bank and others vs. DebasisDas and others : " 19. Concept of natural justice hasundergone a great deal of change in recent years.Rules of natural justice are not rules embodiedalways expressly in a statute or in rules framedthereunder. They may be implied from the nature ofthe duty to be performed under a statute. Whatparticular rule of natural justice should beimplied and what its context should be in a givencase must depend to a grant extent on the facts andcircumstances of that case, the framework of thestatute under which the enquiry is held. The olddistinction between a judicial act and anadministrative act has withered away. Even anadministrative order which involves civilconsequences must be consistent with the rules ofnatural justice. The expression "civilconsequences" encompasses infraction of not merelyproperty or personal rights but of civil liberties,material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages.In its wide umbrella comes everything that affectsa citizen in his civil life." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Per contra, Mr.Hasan Fazal, learned GovernmentAdvocate, appearing for the fourth respondent/DistrictCollector, has contended that the District Collector, who isalso a Magistrate under the Act, has considered the entireobjections raised by the petitioners independently andrejected the objections and further directed the Corporationto proceed with the erection of H.T.Power Lines. Therefore,the District Collector has passed an order under Section 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 bythe petitioner. He strengthened his submissions on "eminentdomain" and in the interest of greater public purposes, theindividual interest cannot be against it and the authoritieshave every right to take note of the public interest over theindividual interest. Therefore, there is no infirmity in theorder passed by the District Collector and the same cannot beinterfered with.7. On the other hand, Mr.Jayesh Dolia, learnedcounsel appearing for the Corporation, has strenuouslycontended that the Corporation is the Central TransmissionUtility under the Ministry of Power and has been entrustedwith the Project to provide quality power at large withgreater reliability particularly to the agricultural,residential and commercial establishments for the State ofTamil Nadu and it is executing the project after observing alllegal procedures under the provisions of the Act and theRules. He also submitted that in the entire section of theproject, foundation work has been completed at 112 locationsand erection of towers is in progress and it is a time boundproject to be completed by January,2008 as per schedule andbecause of the pendency of the writ petitions, they could notproceed further. The learned counsel made a point that theGovernment of India, in exercise of powers conferred bySection 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has passed an orderdated 24.12.2003 to exercise all powers vested in theTelegraph Authority in respect of electrical lines andelectrical plants established or maintained for transmissionof electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphiccommunication necessary for the proper coordination of work.As per Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is notnecessary to issue personal notice or to get prior consentfrom the private land owners and as per Section 10(c) of thesaid Act, if the property is vested in or under the control ofany local authority, then, it is necessary for the petitionerto get permission from such authority. He vehemently contendedthat the transmission line route is as per the experts opinionand the most techno-economically feasible route is chosencausing least damage after complying with the statutoryclearances and avoiding places of inhabitation, worship anddensely populated areas, including the geological orecological system. Therefore, the whole process undertaken by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Corporation is for a public purpose and any re-alignmentof this line at this advanced stage is not at all techno-economically feasible and any delay in completing the projector alteration in route will cause heavy loss to the Governmentexchequer. Hence, in the absence of any valid reasons toobject to the erection of transmission lines and when there islarger public interest involved in the project and also thereis no damage to the properties of the petitioner, thepetitioner cannot stall the project by invoking thejurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.8. In support of their contentions, learned counselfor the respondents have 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 Section16 and particularly from the expression "theDistrict Magistrate may, in his discretion", that anorder will not be forthcoming automatically. ADistrict Magistrate may in his discretion in a givencase refuse or decline to pass an order that thetelegraph authority shall be permitted to exercisethe powers. The wording is significant. TheDistrict Magistrate does not grant permission to theauthority. But, he orders that the authority "shallbe permitted." The discretion conferred by thesection on the District Magistrate is certainly ajudicial discretion, and, in cases where theDistrict Magistrate refuses to pass an order thatthe telegraph authority shall be permitted toexercise 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 Magistratewill have to decide whether the authority should bepermitted or not to exercise the powers underSection 16 of the Telegraph Act. This necessarilymeans that the telegraph authority cannot overrideor ignore the resistance or obstruction and continueto exercise the powers under Section 10notwithstanding such resistance or obstruction. Itfollows that, when an owner or occupier resists orobstructs the exercise of the power under Section10, the telegraph authority will have to approachthe District Magistrate for an order under sub-section (1) of an order under sub-section (1) ofS.16 and can exercise the power under Section 10only in cases where the District Magistrate deems itfit to pass an order that he shall be permitted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ do so. The power conferred by Section 10 is thus aconditional power; conditional on an order beingpassed 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.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras-2 andothers :" 26.The above section, in my opinion,gives authority for placing the poles or the towersin a 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 thecompensation in case of dispute regarding thesufficiency of the compensation.27.In the light of the non-obstante clause inS.42, excluding in categoric terms theapplicability of Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in any consideredopinion, it is not open to the petitioners to relyon S.12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Asstated above, the petitioners strongly relied onthe decision reported in 1959 (II) MLJ 446. Inthat case, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., was pleased todeal only with the scope of S.12. The scope of S.42was apparently not brought to the notice of thelearned Judge. Therefore, the petitioners hereincannot call in aid the said decision.28.It was argued by Mr.A.Venkatesan, learnedcounsel for the petitioners, that the learned Judgehad observed in the above decision that onlyapparatus and appliances to be placed and hightension wire cannot at all be used or put up. Thepetitioners cannot rely upon the observations madeby the learned Judge. Provisions of S.42 are veryclear and at the end of the 20th century, it is nolonger open to anybody to contend the high tensiontowers cannot be put 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 isclear that the District Magistrate is dischargingan administrative function and the generalprinciple of natural justice and other proceduralregulations would apply. The contention of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners that the District Magistrate is givenunlimited power and, therefore, the said provisionis illegal cannot be accepted. The DistrictMagistrate hears objectors and consider whether theobjections raised by the property owners arereasonable. If the District Magistrate is of theview that it is not proper to draw line through theobjections' property he shall decline permission todraw 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 thatSection 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 isin any way violative of Article 14 of theConstitution. 10.Coming to the facts of the cases,petitioners' objection is that there are alternatelines and this was not considered by the DistrictMagistrate. It may be noticed that this line wasproposed in 1992 and because of the obstruction itcould not be drawn. The proposal is to draw 3 K.M.Long 11 K.V. Line for the purpose of voltageimprovement and by the proposed scheme about 400persons are benefited. There is also proposal toinstal a transformer at Edayirickapuzha. Most ofthe petitioners are also benefited by the proposedline. It is true that some of the petitioners willhave to suffer a little inconvenience by the drawalof these lines. But considering the benefit thatmay derive to the consumers, the objections raisedby the petitioners are not weighty and the DistrictMagistrate rightly overruled these objections. Thequestion was elaborately considered by the DistrictMagistrate rightly overruled these objections. Thequestion was elaborately considered by the DistrictMagistrate and the alternate suggestion toconstruct the line along the public road was alsofound not feasible. It is also pointed out thatthe 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 othersvs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras andothers :"20. In this case, the fact that there was anotification in 1961 is not a matter in dispute.Subsequently proceedings have been issued by thefirst respondent on 18.12.1993 whereby the scheme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was approved, and it was also declared that theBoard will exercise power of Telegraph Authorityunder Section 45 of the Electricity Supply Act,and, therefore, the Electricity Board shall not bebound by the provisions of Sections 12 to 16, 18and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Inview of the notification and also the approvedScheme, no argument can be put forward by thepetitioners that the officers of the ElectricityBoard are not entitled to enter the property or todraw the electric line. Once the power under theTelegraphs Act is given to the public officers ofthe Board, they are also entitled to dig pits andalso instal towers over the property. The questionof consent from the petitioners does not arise forconsideration, nor is it required under law."(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. VivasayaVizhipunarvu Iyakkam :"4.Mr.Dolia, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellants says that the direction bythe learned single Judge is beyond the scope ofSection 10 of the Telegraphs Act. He says that theAct nowhere provides that while erecting the lines,the compensation should be decided in advance, andthen alone the trees should be cut, whereas, therespondents herein and the original petitionersbefore the learned single Judge very earnestly pointout that once the trees are cut, there would be noquestion of firstly their identification andsecondly about a proper compensation being decidedupon, as in that case, the concerned authoritieswould not have, anything available to know about theage and capacity of 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 ofthe Corporation. This project has been conceivedby technical experts, and considering the magnitudeof the project and the fact that it covers largeextent of land running through many districts, theminor deviations that the petitioner alleges mustbe ignored. However, it is the jurisdiction of theDistrict Magistrate to consider the objections, andit will be possible for the objector as well as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Corporation to explain before the DistrictMagistrate the manner in which the land lies andprove either that the erection of the transmissiontowers is improper or that the erection of thetowers has been done in the optimum manner possibleand that there could 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 rightof the 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 welfareof the 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 superiorto the interest of an individual.”9. 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.10. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited has beenentrusted with the construction of Udumalpet to Arasur 400 KVD/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 ofTamil Nadu in general and the villages of that area inparticular to boost the growth in the State. The Power GridCorporation is an authority to execute the project afterobserving all legal procedures and as per the existingprovisions of the Electricity Act,2003 and under theprovisions of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 and also under therelevant rules. It appears that the project work hascommenced and it is a time bound project. Out of 189 towersin the entire area, foundation work has been completed at 112locations and erection of towers is in progress and theproject is to be completed by January,2008, as per schedule. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. 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 whichthe Telegraph Authority possesses. Accordingly, the PowerGrid Corporation has been entrusted with the power to exerciseall the powers in respect of electrical lines and electricalplants established or maintained for transmission ofelectricity or for the proper coordination of work. Further,as per Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is notnecessary to issue personal notice or get prior consent fromthe 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 Corporation to getpermission from such authority.12. It appears that the project has been taken overand the route finalised on expert opinion and also taking noteof the techno-economically feasible route and it is causingleast damage after complying with the statutory clearances.Further, the viability of erecting such a transmission linetakes the most techno-economically feasible route avoidingplaces of inhabitation, worship and densely populated areas.It is seen that since the transmission line requires a clearcorridor of 48 metres only i.e., 24 metres on either side fromthe centre of the transmission line, all crops can becultivated and fruit bearing trees of short height can begrown and building put up by maintaining sufficient safetyelectric clearance as per the Electricity Rules,1956, and thistransmission line would not have any impact on human beings,animals, plants etc. or on the geological or ecological systembeyond the statutory clearance. Therefore, the whole processundertaken by the respondent is for a public purpose and anyre-alignment of this line at this advanced stage is not at alltechno-economically feasible. 13. Earlier, this writ petitioner moved this Courtin a batch of Writ Petitions before exhausting the remedyunder the relevant provisions of the Act. On a carefulconsideration of the matter and upon perusing the entirematerials, this Court passed an order on 18.01.2007 inW.P.No.49172 of 2006 and other connected matters and disposedof all the petitions with the following direction :"The Power Grid Corporation shall, asearly as it deems fit, approach theDistrict Magistrate concerned in each casefor permission to deal with the objectionsraised by the petitioners in each case andthe said District Magistrate shall considerthe objections and pass orders in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordance with the provisions which havebeen extracted above. This projectinvolves huge expenditure and therefore, wecannot permit any avoidable delay. Thepetitioners cannot think that by avoidingany notice or summons from the DistrictMagistrate, they can indefinitely delay thematter. Immediately on receipt of therequest by the Corporation for permission,the District Magistrate shall issue noticeto the respective objectors and afterhearing their objections, shall pass ordersin accordance with law, within a period ofsix weeks from the date on which theCorporation makes a request for permissionto the District Magistrate."14. 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 thepetitioner 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. 15. The learned District Magistrate, after goingthrough the written submissions filed by both the land ownersand the Corporation, held as follows :"I have heard the objections raisedby the land owner and gone through thewritten statement filed by the PGCIL,Coimbatore and the objections of thepetitioner. The request of the petitionerto change the alignment with an angle of60 degrees at location No.AP.50/0 wasanalysed and if the angle on the locationNo.AP50/0 is increased to 60 degrees, theline could not be proceeded with, in thesame direction since the line is passingon the houses located and several numberof trees to be cut at S.F.No.510 and theline cost will be more and the presentalignment is Techno Commercial viableroute as per Tower design and the maximumangle on DD type tower is 60 degrees.These works are being carried out for thedevelopment of industrial growth and powermanagement. The grounds of objectioncannot be sustained in public interest. Itherefore found no valid reason tointerfere with the Power Grid Corporationof India Ltd., Coimbatore in respect ofthe objector's land regarding installationof High tension tower line. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As per the powers conferred underSection 16 (1) of the Indian TelegraphAct,1885, I overrule the objections raisedby the land owner and direct the ChiefManager Power Grid Corporation of IndiaLtd., Coimbatore to proceed with the linethrough the lands inS.F.Nos.504,506/2,507/5,507/6,508/1,509,516/1 of Karumathampatti Village, PalladamTaluk, as planned.The Superintendent of Police,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore isrequested to give suitable directions tothe subordinate officers to rendernecessary assistance to the officials ofPGCIL, Coimbatore for the installation ofHigh Tension Power line in the abovefields, if they approached." The above order of the District Collector is under challengein this Writ Petition.16. The main controversy that centres around is,whether the the District Collector has considered theobjections in the light of the directions of this Court andalso in the manner known to law ?17. 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 partiesin making alignment of route of transmission lines and also toconsider the alternate alignment in the light of theobjections of the petitioner. This Court is duty bound toexamine whether the order passed by the District Collector isin accordance with law and also the manner in which theenquiry was conducted.18. A strenuous argument was advanced by the learnedSenior Counsel for the petitioner that laying of the line overthe petitioner's land has been done in a zig zag manner asseen from the sketch annexed to the typed set of papers inorder to avoid the lands of some other influential personsand, instead, if the line is run straight from tower No.AP50/0to AP52, it would run along a public pathway, for which therewould be no objection from any quarter.19. In reply to the said argument, the learnedGovernment Advocate has submitted that no evidence wasproduced by the petitioner to prove that alignment was shifteddue to external influence and cogent argument and reasons weregiven by Power Grid Corporation to show the need for shiftingof alignment and therefore there was no ground to interfere onthe said aspect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. However, the said aspect of the matter has notbeen given due consideration in the impugned order by theDistrict Magistrate, by taking the sketch into account. Aconsistent plea has been made by the petitioner before theDistrict Collector that the deviation is taken only due to theinfluence of other persons.21. It is seen from the sketch that deviation istaken by the Corporation, though there is a straight route.This Court cannot go into the techno-economical feasibility ofthe matter and also as to what would be the appropriate routefor taking transmission line. However, in the absence of anyconvincing material, as it appears that the deviation has beentaken because of the influence of other persons, it is for theDistrict Collector, who is the appropriate authority, toconsider that aspect of the matter, by calling upon theCorporation to furnish adequate reasons for taking such adeviated route. Pursuant to the objections of the petitioner,the Magistrate is duty bound to look into the documentaryproof and the sketch annexed and also the plan and pass aspeaking order on that aspect. Though this Court is convincedon all other aspects, the above aspect of the matter alone hasto be reconsidered. Had the said objection been considered bythe Magistrate, the petitioner would not have any grievance.Therefore, while upholding the findings in the impugned order,this Court directs the District Magistrate to reconsider thesaid objection alone. The District Magistrate, while givingconsideration to this aspect, shall look into the fact ofavailability of Government poramboke lands and the specificobjection that the petitioner's land is a patta land as wellas the material documents furnished by the Corporation. It isalso seen from the sketch that there is a temple in the routeand though it is not pleaded by the petitioner it has beenargued and the same has also to be considered. Therefore, theDistrict Magistrate shall also see whether there is anyinfluence for the deviated line, which goes by the patta landsof the petitioner, when the poramboke lands are available inthe straight line, and in that case how the Governmentporamboke lands have been avoided and the patta lands of thepetitioner have been taken into consideration for the techno-economical feasibility. Reasoning is the heartbeat of everyconclusion and without the same, the conclusion becomesdefunct. The rationale behind it is that the affected partycan know why the decision has gone against him. One of thesalutary requirements of natural justice is spelling outreasons for the order made. Therefore, I am inclined tointerfere with the impugned order in that respect alone, as itis silent with regard to the above aspects. As such, theimpugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside, remittingthe matter back to the District Collector for freshconsideration, in that regard alone.22. While doing so, this Court is conscious of theimportance of the project, involving huge amount, for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ benefit of the public at large and its time boundedness.Therefore, I direct the District Magistrate, Coimbatore, toconsider the above issues and pass orders, giving reasonings,within a period of four weeks from today. It is open to theparties to these proceedings to agitate all other issues, ifany, over which they are aggrieved, if they so desire. Thetime factor indicated in this order has to be strictly adheredto, taking note of the causing of delay in the project.23. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 isclosed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.DixitTo1.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 0143.The General Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise) B-9, Qutab Institutional Area Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi4.The Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Regional Office, SR-II, 33 Race Course Road, Bangaloreone cc to M/s.Aiyar and Dolia, Advocates SR.No.19372one cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, advocate SR.No.19615 W.P.No.19676 OF 2007KSK[CO]SKY/8/4