Bombay High Court Quashes SDO's Compensation Order in Transmission Line Dispute; Rules that Telegraph Authority Alone Has Jurisdiction Under Telegraph Act. Transmission Licensee Constituted as Telegraph Authority Under Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 Holds Exclusive Power to Determine Compensation Under Section 10(d) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and General Circulars Cannot Override.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer determining compensation for use of land for an electricity transmission line.

The petitioner sought quashing of the SDO's order dated 05/09/2018 and a declaration that as a Telegraph Authority, it alone has jurisdiction to determine compensation under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

The SDO had assumed jurisdiction based on general government circulars, while the petitioner contended that its constitution as a Telegraph Authority under the Electricity Act excluded the SDO's jurisdiction.

The MERC had earlier passed an order dated 19/12/2016 directing the Collector to determine compensation, which was not specifically challenged by the petitioner before the filing of the writ.

Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sindhkhedraja had jurisdiction to determine compensation for use of land for a transmission line when the petitioner transmission licensee has been constituted as a Telegraph Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003? Whether the power under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 includes the power to determine compensation or merely the power to pay as determined by another authority?

The petitioner argued that as a constituted Telegraph Authority, it alone had the power to determine compensation under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, any challenge to which lay before the District Judge under Section 16(3). The SDO had no jurisdiction under government circulars, and the general rules could not override the specific statutory conferment. Respondent No. 4 supported the SDO's order, contending that Section 10(d) only allows payment and not determination of compensation; the power to determine vested in the MERC under Section 67(4) of the Electricity Act read with MEWL Rules, and the MERC's earlier order directing the Collector to determine compensation had attained finality.

When a transmission licensee is constituted as a Telegraph Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it becomes entitled to exercise all powers under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, including the power under Section 10(d) to pay compensation, which inherently includes the power to determine the quantum thereof. General government circulars or subordinate rules cannot override such statutory conferment; any dispute regarding compensation is to be resolved by the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act.

the power to pay compensation as indicated by section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act would include the power to determine compensation also, for the reason that without determination of such compensation, there cannot be any payment. the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Rule made absolute. The impugned order dated 05/09/2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sindhkhedraja is quashed and set aside as without jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a transmission licensee, was granted a licence in 2010 and constituted as a Telegraph Authority by State order dated 13/06/2011. The MERC passed an order on 19/12/2016 directing the Collector to determine compensation. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sindhkhedraja, passed the impugned order dated 05/09/2018 determining compensation, relying on government circulars. The writ petition challenging this order was filed in 2019 and was finally heard and decided by the High Court on 07/12/2023.

• Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: 2(6), 10, 10(d), 16(3)
• Electricity Act, 2003: 2(17), 2(72), 2(73), 14, 67(1)(a)-(f), 67(3), 67(4), 68(5)-(6), 69, 86, 164
• Maharashtra Electricity Work of Licensee Rules, 2012: Rule 3(3), Rule 3(4)