Constitution of India — Article 226 — Article 300-A — Writ of Mandamus — High-tension transmission towers — Alleged deviation from approved re-location plan — Obstruction to irrigation — Apprehension without material proof — No writ interference. Electricity transmission — Licensees — Laying and shifting of transmission lines for National Highway project — Public safety and public interest — Alternative alignment — Irrigation channel not affected. Held: When competent authorities categorically state that transmission towers and lines are not being laid through irrigation channels and a proper alternative alignment is finalized, a grievance based solely on apprehension does not warrant issuance of writ under Article 226. (Paras 6 to 8)

advocatemmmohan

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Article 300-A — Writ of Mandamus — High-tension transmission towers — Alleged deviation from approved re-location plan — Obstruction to irrigation — Apprehension without material proof — No writ interference.

Electricity transmission — Licensees — Laying and shifting of transmission lines for National Highway project — Public safety and public interest — Alternative alignment — Irrigation channel not affected.

Held:
When competent authorities categorically state that transmission towers and lines are not being laid through irrigation channels and a proper alternative alignment is finalized, a grievance based solely on apprehension does not warrant issuance of writ under Article 226.
(Paras 6 to 8)

---

FACTS (As emerging from the Judgment)

1. The petitioners claimed ownership over agricultural lands situated in Pennepalli Village, Pellakuru Mandal, comprising:

   • Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.91-1

   • Ac.1-01 cents in Sy.No.96-11 (LPM No.435)

   • Ac.0-39 cents in Sy.Nos.96-8A & 96-9A (LPM No.465)
     acquired through registered sale deeds and under cultivation. (Para 3)

2. The petitioners alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were attempting to lay two high-tension transmission towers (132 KV and 220 KV) along with electrical lines on their agricultural lands, which would obstruct irrigation and violate Article 300-A of the Constitution. (Para 3)

3. The petitioners further alleged deviation from the approved re-location plan and sought removal of existing towers and shifting them to Sy.No.96-9A1 (LPM No.464) of Pennepalli Village. (Relief clause)

---

RELIEF SOUGHT

Issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring deviation from the approved re-location plan as illegal and unconstitutional, restraining extension of tower bases in petitioners’ lands, and directing removal and shifting of existing high-tension towers as per the approved re-location plan. (Para 1)

---

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioners

The petitioners contended that:

• The erection and extension of tower bases would obstruct irrigation.

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

• Deviation from approved re-location plan is illegal and violative of property rights under Article 300-A. (Paras 3 & 4)

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 the six-lane NH-71 project from Renigunta to Naidupeta under Hybrid Annuity Mode.

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

• The proposed electrical lines are not being laid through any irrigation channel.

• A proper and suitable alignment has been finalized avoiding obstruction to irrigation. (Paras 5 to 7)

---

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the petitioners were entitled to writ relief restraining erection or extension of high-tension transmission towers on the allegation of deviation from re-location plan and obstruction to irrigation.

---

ANALYSIS & REASONING OF THE COURT

1. The Court considered the petitioners’ claim regarding obstruction to irrigation and alleged deviation from the approved re-location plan. (Para 3)

2. The Court took note of the respondents’ explanation that:

   • The work is undertaken by competent licensees under Rule 3 of the Act.

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

   • The alignment has been finalized in such a manner that no irrigation channel is affected. (Paras 6 & 7)

3. The Court specifically recorded the clear and categorical submission of the respondents that the electrical lines are not constructed through the irrigation channel, contrary to the petitioners’ allegation. (Para 7)

4. In view of these categorical statements, the Court held that the petitioners’ grievance was only an apprehension without supporting 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 by competent authorities in public interest when there is a categorical assurance that irrigation channels will not be obstructed and the grievance raised is based merely on apprehension without substantiating evidence