UDUPI KASARGODE TRANSMISSION LIMITED Vs. EMMANUEL VINCENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is against the order dtd. 29/3/2023 passed in W.P.No.20819/2021 (GM-KEB) by which learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 40 holding that the order dtd. 12/2/2015 passed by respondent No.41-Union of India as per Annexure-A insofar as it relates to the respondents 1 to 40 to be unenforceable and also quashed the approval granted by respondent No.42-Central Electricity Authority under Sec. 68 of Electricity Act, 2003 in file No.CEA-PS- 12-14(20)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division dtd. 18/1/2019 at Annexure-B insofar as it relates to laying of overhead transmission lines on the land belonging to respondents 1 to 40.

(2.) Impugned Order dtd. 12/2/2015 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.41- Union of India, Ministry of Power delegating the power to grant approval under Ss. 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2003' for short) which was vested with the Joint Secretary (Transmission) Ministry of Power, to the respondent No.42 -Central Electricity Authority(CEA) by its Chairperson. Annexure-B is a communication according prior approval by CEA in favour of the appellant for laying of Udupi (UPCL) Kasargode 400 KV Quad D/C transmission line.

(3.) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 40 herein challenging Annexures A and B contending inter alia that they are the agriculturists and owning certain lands over which a scheme for installation of overhead lines is proposed. That if the overhead lines were installed and project was implemented, the same would adversely affect their livelihood and deprive them of their Right to Property. That Sec. 68 of the Act, 2003 provides that overhead lines to be installed with prior approval of the Appropriate Government subject to certain terms and conditions. That in the absence of any provision the action of respondent No.41 in delegating the authority to respondent No.42-CEA to grant approval under Sec. 68 was one without authority. That respondent No.42-CEA could perform the functions as that of the Central Government only when the rules under Sec. 176(1) of the Act, 2003 were framed and notified and in the absence of any such notification approval granted by respondent No.42 -CEA is without authority. That the impugned order at Annexure-A would be valid only if it was expressed in the name of the President or the Governor as provided under Articles 77(2) and 166(2) of the Constitution of India. Non- compliance with the aforesaid provisions had rendered the entire process without authority of law. That even respondent No.43-KPCTL had objected for implementation of the project. Hence, writ petition was filed seeking quashment of Annexures-A and B.