Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified the scope of statutory powers available to electricity transmission companies under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, holding that once an electricity licensee is validly vested with the powers of the Telegraph Authority, prior consent of the landowner is not a mandatory precondition for surveying, aligning or laying a transmission line over private property. The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal held that such a licensee can exercise the powers available to the Telegraph Authority under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, subject to the statutory safeguards relating to compensation.
The ruling came in two writ petitions concerning the proposed laying of a 132 kV double-circuit transmission line in the Mandideep area. The petitions were directed against the proposed alignment of the second circuit of the 132kV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line, which was intended to facilitate electricity supply to a new unit of Nahar Poly Films Ltd. The petitioners objected particularly to the proposed positioning of Towers 7 and 8 and contended that the transmission line could not be laid over private property without their consent or prior notice.
The dispute required the High Court to examine the interplay between the Electricity Act, 2003, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. At the centre of the controversy was Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, which ordinarily requires an electricity licensee to obtain the prior consent of the owner or occupier before carrying out works on private property. The petitioners relied upon this provision to argue that their consent was indispensable.
The respondents, however, relied upon Section 164 of the Electricity Act. That provision enables the Appropriate Government to confer upon an electricity licensee the powers that are available to the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act. The respondents maintained that once those powers had been conferred, the special statutory mechanism under the Telegraph Act would govern the exercise of the power, thereby displacing the ordinary consent requirement under Rule 3.
The case arose after MP Power Transmission Co. Ltd. issued a notification dated June 10, 2024, sanctioning the transmission project. Thereafter, the Raisen Collector passed an order on July 30, 2025, permitting the transmission line to be laid for supplying electricity to the new unit of Nahar Poly Films Ltd.
Petitioner No. 1, Daulat Ram Engineering Services Company, had been operating a railway-component manufacturing unit since 2003, while petitioner No. 2, Nasa Corporation, had been engaged in the manufacture of heat-exchange equipment since 2013. The petitioners claimed to be affected by the proposed alignment of the transmission line. Of the 13 towers contemplated under the project, their principal objection concerned Towers 7 and 8. Tower 8 was proposed to be erected on the land belonging to Nasa Corporation, whereas no tower was proposed on the frontage of Daulat Ram Engineering Services Company’s property.
The petitioners suggested an alternative alignment which, according to them, would avoid the alleged difficulties arising from the proposed route. However, the technical authorities did not accept the alternative. A technical team inspected the site and found that the suggested alignment would place Tower 8 only about 3.5 metres from an existing gas pipeline. According to the authorities, this would violate the mandatory safety clearance prescribed under Regulation 63(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023.
The controversy became more complicated when construction activity was obstructed. Nahar Spinning Mills initially approached the civil court, but the suit was dismissed. It thereafter approached the High Court in December 2025, following which interim protection was granted against interference with the construction. The present petitioners subsequently challenged the laying of the transmission line, raising objections concerning consent, safety regulations, the legality of the alignment and the invocation of Section 164 of the Electricity Act.
Against this background, the High Court was required to determine whether a landowner could prevent the exercise of statutory powers merely by withholding consent, and whether the existence of Section 164 powers removed the requirement contemplated under Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners primarily challenged the legality of the transmission line on the ground that it was proposed to pass over their private property without their consent or prior notice. They relied upon Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, which ordinarily requires an electricity licensee to obtain the previous consent of the owner or occupier before carrying out works on private property.
According to the petitioners, the statutory requirement of consent could not simply be disregarded merely because the electricity company claimed to possess powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. They contended that the exercise of such powers had to remain within the statutory framework and could not be used as a means of overriding the rights of private landowners without proper justification.
The petitioners also challenged the proposed alignment of the transmission line. They argued that there was a viable alternative route which would avoid their properties and therefore the authorities ought to have considered that route before proceeding with the proposed alignment. The rejection of their suggested alternative was alleged to be arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned.
Another significant submission was that Section 164 of the Electricity Act should not be invoked merely to facilitate a transmission line which was intended, at least initially, to supply electricity to a single private consumer. The petitioners sought to question whether a project primarily intended for the benefit of a particular industrial consumer could legitimately claim the character and statutory protection of a transmission project under Section 164.
The petitioners also relied upon the safety requirements contained in Regulation 63(1) of the Central Electricity Authority Regulations, 2023. They alleged that the construction and proposed alignment required closer scrutiny in view of the existing structures and installations in the area. They raised objections concerning a staff building, mess, national flag mast, floodlights and cargo dispatch area and sought judicial consideration of the effect of the transmission line upon those structures and activities.
The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the transmission project was supported by valid statutory authorisation. The electricity authorities had been vested with the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, and those powers carried with them the statutory mechanism contained in Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act.
The respondents therefore contended that the petitioners could not rely upon Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules in isolation. They pointed out that Rule 3 itself contains an express saving provision under Rule 3(4), which makes it clear that nothing in the rule affects powers conferred upon a licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act.
According to the respondents, once Section 164 powers were validly conferred, the electricity company was entitled to exercise the powers available to the Telegraph Authority for purposes of surveying and laying the transmission line. Prior consent of every affected landowner was therefore not required.
The respondents further justified the rejection of the alternative alignment on technical and safety grounds. The proposed alternative route, they submitted, would bring the high-voltage transmission infrastructure dangerously close to an existing gas pipeline. The technical team had inspected the location and rejected the alternative because the required safety clearance could not be maintained.
The respondents also disputed the suggestion that the alternative alignment had been rejected merely to defeat the petitioners’ objections. The record showed that the technical team had rejected the proposed route on November 22, 2024, considerably before the petitioners later put forward the same route during the litigation. Thus, according to the respondents, the decision was based upon technical considerations and was not an afterthought.
The State and other respondents further maintained that the petitioners had approached the Court belatedly. The project had already progressed substantially, with 13 towers having been erected, and the challenge was raised after considerable time had elapsed from the original notification. The respondents also pointed to the petitioners’ failure to fully disclose earlier proceedings concerning the same transmission corridor.
The State was represented by Government Advocate Anubhav Jain, while other respondents were represented by their respective counsel. The respondents ultimately urged the High Court not to interfere with a technically examined and statutorily sanctioned infrastructure project merely because the petitioners objected to the use of their property.
Court’s Judgment:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed both writ petitions and upheld the authority of the respondents to proceed with the transmission line. The Division Bench made it clear that the central question could not be determined merely by applying the general consent requirement contained in Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. The Court examined the statutory scheme as a whole, particularly the relationship between Rule 3 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act.
The Court first considered the significance of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The provision permits the Appropriate Government to confer upon an electricity licensee powers that are available to the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Once such powers are validly conferred, the licensee does not merely acquire a general administrative permission to undertake the project. It becomes entitled to exercise the specific statutory powers associated with the Telegraph Authority, subject to the limitations and safeguards contained in the Telegraph Act.
Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act are particularly important in this context. Section 10 authorises the Telegraph Authority, subject to the statutory conditions, to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts upon, under, over or across immovable property. Section 16 provides the mechanism for dealing with situations where resistance or obstruction is encountered in the exercise of those powers and also provides a statutory mechanism concerning compensation and determination of disputes.
The High Court therefore held that once the Section 164 powers had been validly conferred, the electricity licensee could exercise the corresponding powers under the Telegraph Act. The Court rejected the proposition that every landowner’s prior consent must necessarily be obtained before such statutory powers can be exercised.
The Court attached particular importance to Rule 3(4) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. While Rule 3(a) generally requires prior consent of the owner or occupier for works upon private property, Rule 3(4) expressly preserves the powers conferred upon a licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act.
Thus, according to the Court, Rule 3(a) cannot be read in isolation. The ordinary consent requirement applies to works falling within the ordinary statutory framework of the licensee, but it does not override a separate and specifically conferred statutory power under Section 164.
The Court observed that the sanction under Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act had been upheld and remained subject to the statutory scheme. Once those powers were validly conferred and invoked, neither prior consent nor a pre-decisional hearing could be treated as an indispensable condition for exercising the power to survey and align the transmission line.
This interpretation is significant because it distinguishes between a private landowner’s proprietary interest and the statutory authority conferred upon a transmission licensee. The Court did not hold that private property becomes freely available to an electricity company. Rather, it recognised that the legislature has created a specific statutory mechanism under which certain public utility infrastructure may be placed across private property, while simultaneously providing safeguards, including compensation.
The Court accordingly rejected the argument that a landowner could insist that the transmission line must necessarily be routed around his property simply because he did not consent to its use. The statutory framework does not make the route dependent upon the consent of each individual landowner once the requisite Section 164 powers have been conferred.
At the same time, the Court pointed out that the affected landowner is not without a remedy. The Telegraph Act provides a statutory mechanism for compensation. The Court referred to Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act in this regard. Therefore, the absence of a right to veto the transmission alignment does not mean that the landowner is deprived of all legal protection. The law balances the need for infrastructure with the landowner’s entitlement to compensation for the deprivation or damage caused by the exercise of statutory powers.
The Bench also considered the challenge to the alternative alignment. It found that the petitioners’ suggested route had not been rejected casually or for the first time during the litigation. The technical team had examined the alternative and rejected it on November 22, 2024. This was nearly a year before the petitioners subsequently relied upon the same route in the proceedings.
More importantly, the Court found a substantive safety reason for rejecting the alternative. The proposed location of Tower 8 under the alternative alignment would have brought it to approximately 3.5 metres from an existing gas pipeline. Such proximity was inconsistent with the safety clearance prescribed under Regulation 63(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023.
The Court emphasised that safety standards applicable to high-voltage electricity transmission infrastructure and gas pipelines cannot be dismissed as mere technical formalities. Such requirements exist to prevent potentially serious consequences arising from the interaction of two hazardous forms of infrastructure. The Court therefore declined to substitute its own view for that of the technical authorities, particularly when the alternative route itself raised a regulatory safety concern.
The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioners’ suggested route could adversely affect other landowners. Therefore, accepting the alternative merely because it would avoid the petitioners’ property would not necessarily resolve the larger problem. A transmission alignment must be assessed from the standpoint of technical feasibility, safety, statutory requirements and the overall project, rather than from the interest of one individual landowner alone.
The Court further rejected the argument that Section 164 of the Electricity Act was unavailable merely because the transmission line was initially intended to supply electricity to a particular private industrial consumer. The fact that a particular consumer may be the immediate beneficiary of a transmission arrangement does not, by itself, destroy the statutory character of the project or invalidate the powers conferred under Section 164.
In other words, the Court did not accept the proposition that a transmission project loses its legal character simply because electricity is initially intended to be supplied to one industrial unit. The legality of the exercise of Section 164 powers has to be assessed on the basis of the statutory authorisation and the nature of the project, rather than merely by identifying the immediate consumer.
The Bench also declined to enter into disputed factual questions concerning the staff building, mess, national flag mast, floodlights and cargo dispatch area. Such issues, particularly where they involved disputed facts and technical assessments, could not by themselves justify judicial interference with the statutory project.
Another factor that weighed against the petitioners was the delay in approaching the Court. The Bench noted that the petitions were filed more than 17 months after the initial notification and approximately nine months after the erection of 13 towers. The substantial progress of the project was therefore relevant while considering whether discretionary writ jurisdiction should be exercised.
The Court also took note of the petitioners’ failure to disclose earlier proceedings concerning the same transmission corridor. The High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and a party approaching the Court is expected to place all relevant facts and previous proceedings before it. The Court found the conduct of the petitioners relevant while considering the relief sought.
Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the absence of the petitioners’ consent did not invalidate the exercise of statutory powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The Court held that once the statutory powers had been validly conferred, prior consent and a pre-decisional hearing could not be treated as mandatory conditions for surveying and aligning the transmission line.
The Court consequently dismissed both writ petitions. It also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh upon each petitioner, directing that the amount be paid to Nahar Poly Films Ltd.
The judgment thus reinforces an important principle concerning electricity infrastructure and private property: while ownership rights remain legally protected, a landowner cannot exercise an absolute veto over the laying of a transmission line when the electricity licensee has been validly vested with the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. The statutory scheme instead provides for exercise of those powers subject to technical and safety requirements, along with the landowner’s right to seek compensation under the Telegraph Act.
The ruling is particularly significant for large-scale electricity transmission projects, where obtaining individual consent from every affected landowner could otherwise become a substantial obstacle to infrastructure development. At the same time, the decision makes clear that such statutory powers must be exercised within the framework prescribed by law. The existence of Section 164 powers does not dispense with technical safety requirements, statutory authorisation or the compensation mechanism available to affected property owners. The balance struck by the Court is therefore between the need for reliable electricity infrastructure and the continuing legal protection afforded to private property through statutory safeguards and compensation.