Grant of interim mandatory injunction for laying electricity cables despite proprietary disputes in larger public interest.

The Petitioner, a confectionery and beverages manufacturer, obtained formal sanctions from the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL) for an additional power supply of 4689 KV at its manufacturing plant in Induri, Pune

Upon securing permissions and no-objection certificates from MSEDCL, MIDC, Zilla Parishad, and the Village Panchayat, the Petitioner initiated the laying of an underground High Tension (HT) cable across a 14 km stretch between the Ambi sub-station and its factory

The Petitioner successfully executed 13.8 km of the project but was obstructed by Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 from completing the final 200 meters abutting Gat No. 391

The Petitioner filed a Regular Civil Suit for a permanent injunction and sought a temporary injunction (Exhibit 5)

The Respondents resisted, claiming the Petitioner was laying cables through their private properties rather than the public road margin

The Civil Judge rejected the temporary injunction application on the grounds that the Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favored the Respondents, and that an alternate remedy existed under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006

The District Judge dismissed the subsequent appeal

Aggrieved, the Petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

The Court applied the principles governing Article 227 of the Constitution of India, observing that while supervisory jurisdiction must be used sparingly, interference is warranted in instances of patent error of law, perversity, or grave miscarriage of justice (Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala)

Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 govern the execution of telegraph/electricity lines across immovable property, stipulating that unobstructed access is imperative for public infrastructure, and the remedy for aggrieved landowners lies strictly in financial compensation, not obstruction (Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles And Industries Limited and Century Rayon Limited v. IVP Limited)

Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 provides an administrative mechanism to handle obstructions only where the objector's proprietary status over the disputed land parcel is undisputed or indisputable

Regarding injunctions, the Court applied the standard test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss (Hubbard v. Vosper and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi)

Interim relief partaking the character of final relief may be granted in rare, exceptional cases where its refusal would result in immediate, extreme hardship (Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra)

The High Court observed that both lower courts committed a gross and perverse error of law by failing to properly appreciate the evidentiary weight of the Court Commissioner's local inspection report

The report by the Executive Engineer explicitly verified the physical existence of an established public road (Other District Road No. 61) on the disputed stretch, fracturing the Respondents' claim of exclusive private ownership

The High Court rejected the argument that dedications to a single consumer strip the distribution infrastructure of its statutory status under the Electricity Act, reinforcing that infrastructure development remains a protected activity in the larger public interest

Because the Respondents failed to offer prima facie proof of title over the road parcel, the lower courts erred in applying the statutory bar under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, which comes into play only when title is clear

Assessing the parameters of injunction, the Court observed that the Petitioner had completed 13.8 km of the 14 km stretch, meaning a refusal to grant relief would render massive capital expenditure entirely nugatory, tilting the balance of convenience heavily in the Petitioner's favor

Conversely, the deployment of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)—a specialized trenchless technology—ensured minimal surface damage

Any minor damage is financially compensable under the Indian Telegraph Act, meaning the Respondents faced no risk of irretrievable loss

Finally, although the temporary injunction resembled final relief, the high threshold of a "strong prima facie case" was met, justifying immediate protection from immediate and pressing injury

The Petitioner’s application for a temporary injunction was allowed, restraining the Respondents from obstructing the project

The holding was conditioned upon the Petitioner: (a) strictly adhering to administrative permissions and utilizing the HDD boring method to cause minimum land damage, and (b) executing a security deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 before the trial court to secure potential future compensation claims by the Respondents

No order was made as to costs