KASHIRAM MAHADEO AKRE Vs. NTPC LTD MOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners impugn the order passed by the District Magistrate on a preliminary objection raised by the petitioners to the tenability of the application filed by the respondent no.1 Corporation under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 seeking permission to continue the work of construction of 132 KV Tower.

(2.) The petitioners are agriculturists and the owners of land in village Mouda, District Nagpur. The respondent no.1 Corporation had started the project for generation of 1000 MW electricity at Mouda which is known as the Mouda Super Thermal Power Project. The respondent no.1 Corporation had informed the petitioners that it would start the construction of the High Tension Lines by erecting the tower in the land of the petitioners. The petitioners had raised an objection to the erection of the tower in their land. Since the petitioners were obstructing the work of erection of the tower and laying the lines, the respondent no.1 Corporation filed an application under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the District Magistrate for grant of permission to continue the work of construction of the tower and laying the lines. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the application on the ground that the respondent no.1 Corporation was not a 'Telegraph Authority' within the meaning of the term under the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and, hence, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent no.1 Corporation under Section 16 of the Act of 1885. The District Magistrate, however, rejected the preliminary objection by the impugned order dated 30.01.2012.

(3.) Shri Daga, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the District Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent no.1 Corporation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as only a "Telegraph Authority" within the meaning of the term under Section 3(6) of the Act of 1885 was entitled to file an application under Section 16 and the respondent no.1 Corporation was not a Telegraph Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither was the respondent no.1 Corporation a 'Telegraph Authority' within the meaning of the term under Section 3(6) of the Act of 1885 nor was the respondent no.1 Corporation conferred with any powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Act of 1885 by the order of the Appropriate Government in writing as required under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the aforesaid background, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the application filed by the respondent no.1 Corporation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was not tenable and the District Magistrate committed a serious error in holding that the application was tenable because the project implemented by the respondent no.1 Corporation was a Government Approved Project.