Objections to Erection of Electricity Transmission Lines Must Be Adjudicated by the Concerned District Collector

The petitioners purchased ten parcels of land and applied for their conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural status.

They subsequently learned that the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO - Respondent No. 2) proposed to install foundation and wiring for 400 KV electricity lines (Kalipura (Prantij) Lilo Line) passing through their Survey Nos. 186 and 187.

The petitioners requested GETCO to shift the lines to the boundary of the survey numbers to minimize impact, but their applications were rejected based on existing DILR maps.

The petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to prevent the installation and to compel the shifting of the lines.

1. Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct Respondent No. 2 to shift the proposed electricity lines to the boundary of the petitioners' property.

2. Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy to address their grievances regarding the installation of electricity lines on their land.

The Electricity Act, 2003, and the Telegraph Act, 1885 (as applicable via Section 164 of the Electricity Act), which empower the State and its agencies to place electricity lines but also provide a mechanism for landholders to raise objections before the District Collector regarding the exercise of such powers.

Article 226 of the Constitution, which allows for judicial review of administrative actions.

The court observed that while GETCO proposed the installation based on technical maps, the petitioners’ specific objections regarding the exact placement and the potential for shifting the lines within the same survey numbers had not been adequately addressed by the utility provider.

Rather than adjudicating the technical feasibility of shifting the lines itself, the High Court determined that the appropriate procedure is for the aggrieved party to raise these objections before the administrative authority designated by law.

The court reasoned that since the respondent had not considered the petitioners' applications or objections, the petitioners must be allowed to agitate these grievances before the District Collector, who is the competent authority to balance the public utility requirements against private property rights.

The District Collector is ordered to consider and decide the petitioners’ objections in accordance with the law, providing a proper opportunity for a hearing within two months of receiving the order.

Consequently, the petition was disposed of, and the rule was discharged.