Delhi HC Issues Notice on Contempt Plea filed by ANI Media Private Limited  ||  Rights of Mutation: Del. HC Initiates Suo Motu PIL Over Lack of Policies for Mutation of Property  ||  All. HC: Can’t Implicate Co-Accused u/s 149 when there is No Meeting of Mind Regarding Common Object  ||  SC: Factum of Causing Injury Not Relevant When Accused Roped in as Member of Unlawful Assembly  ||  Meghalaya Govt. to SC: Circular Issued Regarding Prohibition of 'Two Finger test' on Rape Survivors  ||  SC: No Minimum Sentence Prescribed for Conviction Under Section 304(A) and 338 of IPC  ||  Kar. HC: Offence Under Widlife Protection Act Shouldn’t be Kept Pending for Very Long  ||  Mad. HC: Courts Have Power to Grant Maintenance to Muslim Woman Who Has Filed for Divorce  ||  Bom. HC: Bail Granted to Man on Ground of Having No Intention to Disrupt Public Peace  ||  MP HC: Transferring Accused Merely Because ICC Proceedings are Pending is Unjustified    

J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4951) - (High Court of Delhi) (02 Jul 2024)

Alignments of transmission lines are decided by experts in the field and Court cannot sit over the decision taken by the experts as an Appellate Authority

MANU/DE/4396/2024

Electricity

The Petitioner, an asset reconstruction company, has approached this Court for a direction to Respondent No.2 for changing the alignment/path and position of the electrical pole and high tension transmission line which is being built over the Subject Property.

It is the case of the Petitioner that, if the transmission lines are drawn over the subject property which is in possession of the Petitioner, the value which the subject property could yield in an auction will be diminished which will be detrimental to the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that the alignment can be changed in order to minimize the damage that can be caused to the Petitioner.

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that the Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines for the transmission of electricity confer upon any officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Telegraph Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines.

The Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 which has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for procedure for licensees to carryout works. It is undisputed that the Respondent No.2/PGCI is a licensee under the Electricity Act.

The Apex Court in Century Rayon Limited vs. IVP Limited and Others, has held that as per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest and that the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 would overrule any right over any procedure that laid down under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

In any event, material on record as placed by Respondent No.2/PGCI shows that the general public was informed about the proposed route of transmission lines by bringing out advertisements in the Indian Express and Dainik Bhaskar inviting objections from the general public. Neither the Petitioner nor the owner nor the Yes Bank from whom the debts were assigned to the Petitioner had raised any objections to the public notice.

It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the alignment for the transmission line was approved by the Competent Authority after conducting Techno-Economic Feasibility Study. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the alignments are decided by experts in the field and, therefore, this Court cannot sit over the decision taken by the experts as an Appellate Authority.

In view of the settled law as per the Electricity Act and Telegraph Act that, unobstructed access to lay down electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest and also in view of the fact that notices have been issued by the Respondent No.2/PGCI inviting objections from the public, this Court is not inclined to pass any directions as prayed for in the writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Tags : ELECTRIC POLE   TRANSMISSION LINES   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved