DHOOM MERCANTILE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within one month of resumption of normal functioning of the Court. Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.

(2.) The appeal is arising out of an order dated 4th August 2020 in connection with a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order passed by the District Magistrate under the Indian Telegraph Act on 11th March 2020. The District Magistrate passed the order on the basis of a representation made by the petitioner for relocation of the high-tension lines so that the enjoyment of the petitioner over its property does not suffer from extreme prejudice. The District Magistrate considered the representation and refused change of route alignment on the ground that apart from the fact that it is a belated request, it is also not a viable idea as the alignment fixed by Power Grid Corporation was made on technical and other feasible considerations. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner for realignment of the proposed transmission line tower was declined.

(3.) Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that although the District Magistrate was required to decide the matter in accordance with Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, but it would appear from the communication dated 12th March, 2020, the District Magistrate had exercised the power under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is submitted that the District Magistrate has completely misdirected his mind in not taking into consideration that in a similar situation, the same authority had allowed realignment of the transmission line tower. It is submitted that it would appear from the tenor of the order that the District Magistrate has applied his jurisdiction under Section 16 and accordingly the considerations that are required to be taken in deciding an application under Section 17 were not applied thereby making the order untenable. Mr. Chatterjee accordingly has prayed for setting aside of the said impugned order of the District Magistrate and consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the transmission company was directed to proceed with the work subject to an undertaking being filed that in the event the writ petitioner succeeds the authority shall remove the Tower Grid No. 86A from the disputed land.