Farmer’s Kudankulam Power-Line Route Challenge: Madras HC Directs Collector To Decide Fresh Plea Within 4 Weeks Of Receipt; Project Can Proceed

In brief

The question

1. Whether the District Collector’s order dated 15 June 2026 should be quashed and the respondents directed to use the petitioner’s proposed alternative route.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the ninth respondent District Collector, who must decide it under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, within four weeks of receipt.

It also directed

The project may continue; no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner, an agricultural landowner in Singathakurichi Revenue Village, challenged the District Collector’s order dated 15 June 2026 concerning a proposed high-voltage transmission line for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 project.

pp. 3–5

He sought installation of the line along an alternative route through eastern dry lands and complained that no public hearing had been held.

pp. 3–5

The respondents submitted that the project route had already been finalised, that no line or tower had yet been installed on the petitioner’s land, and that the statutory process provided for addressing any dispute.

pp. 5–6

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the District Collector’s order dated 15 June 2026 should be quashed and the respondents directed to use the petitioner’s proposed alternative route.

p. 3

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s grievance should instead be considered by the District Collector under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, while the transmission project continues.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

pp. 5–7

The respondents relied on Section 10 in support of the authority to use land for the project and address compensation, and the Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner’s representation under Section 16.

pp. 5–7

The Court also referred to L. Mangalam v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District & Others, W.P.(MD) No. 24051 of 2026, dated 16 September 2026, as a similar matter.

p. 7

No further statutory test or legal principle is set out in the order.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 Section 10 Section 16

04Reasoning

The Court noted the respondents’ position that no transmission line or tower had yet been installed on the petitioner’s land.

pp. 5–6

Rather than determine the merits of the proposed alternative route or quash the Collector’s order, it followed the approach in L. Mangalam and directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation.

p. 7

The Collector must consider and dispose of it under Section 16 within four weeks of receipt.

p. 7

The Court expressly stated that this direction does not prevent the respondents from continuing the project.

p. 7