Section 164 powers override Rule 3(a)’s prior-consent requirement for transmission lines.

The petitions arose from the project for second-circuit stringing of the 132 KV DCSS Mandideep–Nahar Transmission Line.

In W.P. No. 49694 of 2025, Daulat Ram Engineering Services Ltd. and Nasa Corporation challenged MPPTCL’s notification dated 10.06.2024, published on 05.07.2024, sanctioning the project, and the Collector’s order dated 30.07.2025 under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The petitioners alleged that the alignment would affect their industrial premises and was undertaken without their consent or adequate consideration of alternative routes.

W.P. No. 32213 of 2025 was filed by Adeel Siddiqui and Nadir Siddiqui, who claimed joint ownership of Khasra No. 115/3(S), Village Simrai, Mandideep.

Both petitions were heard together because they concerned the same transmission project and common questions concerning Section 164 of the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act.

1. Whether the exercise of powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, validly authorised MPPTCL to lay the transmission line over or across private property without obtaining the landowners’ consent?

2. Whether Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, requiring prior consent of the owner or occupier, continued to apply despite the conferment of Telegraph Authority powers under Section 164?

3. Whether the transmission line could lawfully be sanctioned for the immediate benefit of a private industrial consumer, and whether the respondents’ refusal to adopt the petitioners’ proposed alternate alignment was arbitrary or unreasonable?

4. Whether disputes regarding the actual alignment, existing structures, damage, and compensation could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, or were required to be pursued before the appropriate forum under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act?

5. Whether W.P. No. 49694 of 2025 was liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of connected proceedings and delay or laches?

The Court applied Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, under which prior consent is ordinarily required for works affecting private property, but Rule 3(4) expressly excludes powers conferred under Section 164.

Section 164 permits the Appropriate Government to confer upon a licensee the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act authorise placement of lines and posts over private property, subject to causing minimal damage and paying compensation; resistance may be addressed by the District Magistrate, while disputes concerning compensation lie before the District Judge under Section 16(3).

Relying on Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143, the Court held that Section 164 powers override the consent requirement under Rule 3.

Under Century Rayon Ltd. v. IVP Ltd., (2021) 20 SCC 758, a line does not lose its statutory or public character merely because it initially serves a particular private consumer.

The Court also applied the principle in K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2022) 12 SCC 815, affirming that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant to discretionary relief under Article 226.

The Court held that MPPTCL had been validly vested with Telegraph Authority powers under Section 164. Consequently, Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules did not require the petitioners’ consent, by virtue of Rule 3(4), and the absence of consent did not invalidate the construction.

The proposed alternate alignment had been rejected before the petitioners’ later representations because it would breach the safety clearance applicable to the existing gas pipeline; the Court therefore found a technically supported and non-arbitrary basis for the alignment decision.

The Court further accepted that the line retained its statutory and public character even though it initially served Nahar Poly Films Ltd., particularly because ownership and maintenance remained with MPPTCL and the line could be used for other consumers.

Conflicting claims concerning the existence and date of construction of buildings, sheds, floodlights, and other structures were factual disputes unsuitable for determination under Article 226.

In W.P. No. 32213 of 2025, the Court similarly held that the alleged wrongful inclusion of Khasra No. 115/3 required field and record verification, and that any affected landowner’s remedy lay in compensation proceedings rather than a writ seeking to halt the project.

W.P. No. 49694 of 2025 was additionally undermined by non-disclosure of connected proceedings and an unexplained delay of more than seventeen months, after substantial construction had already occurred.

The Court upheld the validity of the exercise of Section 164 powers, the Collector’s order dated 30.07.2025, and the sanctioned transmission-line alignment.

It held that prior landowner consent was unnecessary once Telegraph Authority powers had been conferred under Section 164, and that the petitioners’ disputes regarding the alignment, affected structures, and extent of impact could be pursued through compensation proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act or before another competent forum.

The petitions were dismissed with costs, with Rs. 1,00,000 payable by the petitioner in each writ petition to Nahar Poly Films Ltd., totalling Rs. 2,00,000; all pending interim applications were disposed of.