District Collector may permit utility transmission lines over government poramboke under Section 16, subject to safeguards.

The petitioner, a resident of Lakkumanaickenpatti Village, Tiruppur District, filed a writ petition styled as public interest litigation challenging the District Collector’s order dated 02.01.2026 in Na.Ka.No.25632/2025/E5.

By that order, the Collector permitted JSW Renewable Energy Dolvi Three Limited to erect 33 KV transmission towers and overhead lines across government poramboke lands, cart tracks, a stream and other public lands in Vellakovil and Lakkamanaickenpatti Villages, for transmitting electricity from a wind-energy project to a sub-station at Peramium.

The petitioner contended that the affected lands comprised fourteen survey numbers in Vellakovil and eight survey numbers in Lakkamanaickenpatti, including cart tracks, water bodies and stream poramboke, and that the works could damage drainage, water resources and public access.

He and other villagers submitted objections dated 26.11.2025 and 02.12.2025, alleging that the objections were not properly considered.

The Collector obtained reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer and Municipal Commissioner, and ultimately granted permission subject to thirty-six conditions protecting water bodies, drainage, roads, cart tracks, trees and public convenience.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the District Collector could lawfully permit the use of government poramboke lands, cart tracks and water-related public lands for the erection of transmission towers and lines by invoking Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

2. Whether the private project proponent lacked authority to rely on the Telegraph Act in the absence of a demonstrated statutory conferment under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Whether reliance on G.O.Ms.Nos.101, 172 and 80, and the grant of permission subject to conditions, disclosed non-application of mind or misapplication of Government policy.

4. Whether the impugned order violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by inadequately considering the petitioner’s objections and failing to protect water bodies, public pathways and the environment.

The Court applied Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, treating it as permitting the competent authority to regulate the use of land for telecommunication or transmission infrastructure and, in the present context, to grant permission for use of government lands subject to safeguards.

It also considered Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the prior approval obtained for the overhead transmission line, and the route approval granted by the Central Level Power and Telecommunication Co-ordination Committee.

The Court treated G.O.Ms.No.101, Water Resources Department, dated 30.09.2024, as requiring protection of water bodies, stream banks, drainage and water flow, while G.O.Ms.Nos.172 and 80 were regarded as relevant principally to track rent and regulation of utility infrastructure on public roads.

It further applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226: where a competent authority has considered relevant material and balanced public utility against environmental and public-interest concerns, the Court will not substitute its own view unless the decision is perverse or one that no reasonable authority could have made.

The Court also recognised the constitutional protection of a clean and healthy environment and the public trust doctrine concerning water bodies and common lands.

The Court held that the Collector’s order was not an attempt to overcome resistance from a private landowner but was, in substance, an act of permissive management of government land for a public utility, subject to thirty-six protective conditions; therefore, the use of Section 16 did not, by itself, establish want of jurisdiction.

The Court relied additionally on the parent company’s prior approval under Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act and route approval for the same transmission line, finding no fundamental illegality in the project’s regulatory foundation.

Although G.O.Ms.Nos.172 and 80 were not substantive sources of power for erecting transmission towers, their limited use for calculating track rent and regulating public-road infrastructure did not invalidate the Collector’s order.

The Court found that G.O.Ms.No.101 was substantially reflected in the conditions requiring departmental supervision near the stream, protection of stream banks and drainage, maintenance of water clearance and prevention of obstruction to water flow.

It further concluded that the objections were considered through departmental reports, including the Tahsildar’s report, and that the conditions adequately addressed concerns regarding trees, roads, cart tracks, pipelines, future road widening and public access.

Applying the deferential standard of judicial review, the Court found no perversity, arbitrariness, non-application of mind or violation of Articles 14 and 21.

It held that the order was passed after due enquiry, consideration of departmental reports and objections, and imposition of adequate safeguards for government lands, water bodies, drainage and cart tracks.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The seventh respondent was directed to remain strictly bound by all thirty-six conditions, while the respondent authorities were directed to ensure compliance and take immediate remedial action if any damage occurred to water bodies, drainage or cart tracks during the work.