JAYANTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V.Raghavachari, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mrs. A.Srijeyanthi, Learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the First to Third, Seventh and Eighth Respondents, Mr. Abdul Saleem, Learned Counsel, who takes notice for the Fourth to Sixth Respondents and Mr. Ajmal Khan, Learned Senior Counsel of M/s. Ajmal Associates, Learned Counsel for the Caveator / Ninth Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Appellants had filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 15896 of 2020 in this Court impeaching the orders in Na.Ka. No. 6450/2020/E5 dated 08.10.2020 passed by the Third Respondent granting permission to the Ninth Respondent to erect electric towers in the respective lands of the Appellants under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). The grievance ventilated by the Appellants in the Writ Petition was that the 'enter upon permission' was granted without proper service of notice to the land owners and without considering the objections raised by those who had participated in the enquiry, and that the Ninth Respondent had mislead the Third Respondent as if it was an 'Authority' under the Act. The Writ Court after referring to the various decisions governing the controversy arrived at the conclusion that neither the Appellants were entitled to any notice before granting any permission nor there was any violation of principles of natural justice and dismissed the Writ Petition, which is assailed in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) The primordial contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants in this Appeal is that though a specific contention had been raised before the Writ Court that the Ninth Respondent was not an 'Authority' entitled to invoke Section 16 of the Act, the same has not been considered while rejecting the other contentions raised. It is brought to notice by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Ninth Respondent that in the order dated 30.11.2011 in W.P. No. 22967 of 2011, etc., batch filed by similarly placed land owners against the Ninth Respondent, this Court has held that no license was required for generating company for establishing, operating or transmitting a dedicated transmission line, except the conditions mentioned therein and its compliance was not disputed. However, on appeal, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12.01.2012 in W.A. No. 2401 of 2011, etc., batch modified that order based upon a subsequent agreement entered between the parties, meaning thereby the order passed in that batch of Writ Petitions cannot be said to have attained finality on the proposition of law now canvassed by the Appellants in this case. It is also stated by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Ninth Respondent that most of the Appellants have entered into compromise with the Ninth Respondent for erection of towers in their respective lands and receive compensation after the order was passed in the Writ Petition and it is only in respect of one tower, the erection is yet to be completed. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants expresses his inability to confirm the said facts without instructions from the concerned persons.