Constitution of India — Article 226 — Article 300-A — Writ of Mandamus — Erection of high-tension transmission towers — Alleged obstruction to irrigation canal — Apprehension without substantiation — No interference warranted. Electricity Act / Power transmission — Licensees — Shifting and laying of transmission lines for public purpose — Public safety and public interest — Alignment finalized avoiding irrigation channel.

advocatemmmohan

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Article 300-A — Writ of Mandamus — Erection of high-tension transmission towers — Alleged obstruction to irrigation canal — Apprehension without substantiation — No interference warranted.

Electricity Act / Power transmission — Licensees — Shifting and laying of transmission lines for public purpose — Public safety and public interest — Alignment finalized avoiding irrigation channel.

Held:
Where competent authorities categorically state that high-tension transmission lines are not being laid through the irrigation canal and that a proper alternative alignment has been finalized, the grievance based on apprehension alone does not warrant issuance of writ.
(Paras 6 to 8)

---

FACTS (As emerging from the Judgment)

1. The petitioners are small farmers owning agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.17-1, 96-2, 96-7 etc. of Pennepalli Village, Pellakuru Mandal, Tirupati District. (Para 3)

2. The sole source of irrigation for the petitioners’ lands is the Pennepalli tank supply canal (Telugu Ganga Canal) running through Sy.No.100-10 of Pennepalli Village. (Para 3)

3. The petitioners alleged that the respondent authorities were attempting to erect huge high-tension transmission towers (132 KV and 220 KV) in the said supply canal, which would obstruct the free flow of water and deprive them of irrigation. (Para 3)

4. On this basis, the petitioners sought a declaration that deviation from the approved relocation plan was illegal and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential restraint order. (Relief clause)

---

RELIEF SOUGHT

Issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deviating from the approved relocation plan and erecting high-tension transmission towers in the supply canal as illegal and unconstitutional, and to restrain the respondents from obstructing the water source. (Para 1)

---

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioners

The petitioners contended that:

• The supply canal is the only source of irrigation.

• Laying of high-tension towers in the canal would block water flow.

• Courts have consistently held that natural water courses and irrigation channels cannot be obstructed. (Para 3)

Respondents

The learned Standing Counsel submitted that:

• The 220 KV Manubolu–Sullurpeta-1 SC line (Loc. Nos.169 to 170) is being laid as part of infrastructure necessitated by the six-lane NH-71 project.

• Detailed surveys were conducted considering technical feasibility and public safety.

• The transmission lines are not being laid through the irrigation canal.

• A proper and suitable alignment has been finalized avoiding the canal. (Paras 4, 6 & 7)

---

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the respondents’ proposed erection of high-tension transmission lines warranted interference by this Court on the allegation that it would obstruct an irrigation canal and violate Article 300-A of the Constitution.

---

ANALYSIS & REASONING OF THE COURT

1. The Court took note of the petitioners’ concern regarding obstruction to the irrigation canal and the dependence of their agricultural lands on the said water source. (Para 3)

2. The Court also considered the submissions of the respondents that:

   • The work was undertaken by competent licensees.

   • The shifting and laying of transmission lines was in public interest and public safety.

   • The alignment had been finalized in such a manner that no transmission tower would pass through the irrigation canal. (Paras 6 & 7)

3. The Court specifically recorded the clear and categorical statement of the respondents that the electrical lines are not being constructed through the irrigation channel. (Para 7)

4. In view of these categorical submissions, the Court held that the grievance raised by the petitioners was only an apprehension and not supported by any concrete material. (Para 8)

5. Consequently, the Court found that no specific directions or interference were warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 8)

---

FINAL ORDER / DIRECTIONS

1. The writ petition was disposed of. (Para 8)

2. No order as to costs.

3. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were ordered to stand closed.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A writ court will not interfere with infrastructure or transmission works undertaken in public interest where competent authorities categorically state that irrigation channels will not be obstructed and the grievance of landowners is based only on apprehension without substantiating material.