Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, five brothers who jointly own agricultural land measuring 6 acres 02 guntas in Kasinakunte village, Nidagundi Taluk, Vijayapura District, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting their representation to shift the proposed electric transmission tower from the centre of their land to an alternative corner location. The dispute arose from the construction of a 400 KV Gadag‑Narendra transmission line by respondent No.2, a private company that had acquired the special purpose vehicle from REC Power Development and Consultancy Limited. The petitioners alleged that they received no individual notice or consent under Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and that the tower, if erected at the proposed point ‘A’, would divide their agricultural land into two halves, rendering it unsafe for cultivation and effectively wasting the entire holding. They further contended that the Deputy Commissioner failed to conduct an enquiry under Section 67(4) of the Act and that the rejection was based solely on the ground that shifting would incur expenses to the company, without considering technical feasibility or the availability of alternative points ‘C’ or ‘H’ shown in a hand sketch. The petitioners had previously filed a civil suit for permanent injunction (O.S.No.201/2023) and obtained a status quo order in W.P.No.203450/2023. When a subsequent writ petition (W.P.No.200035/2024) was rejected by the High Court on 29.02.2024, they were directed to approach the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, which dismissed their petition (O.P.No.6/2024) on 27.03.2024. In the present writ petition, the petitioners reiterated their grievances, invoking violations of Articles 21, 300A, and other constitutional provisions, and sought quashing of the impugned order and a mandamus directing relocation of the tower. The matter was heard and reserved for orders, and on 23.04.2024 the court pronounced its order, the text of which remains incomplete in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 05.02.2024 rejecting the petitioners' representation for shifting the transmission tower was passed in violation of Section 67(2) and 67(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and principles of natural justice, and whether the alternative proposal was feasible.
Law Points
- Electricity Act
- 2003 Sections 5(1)
- 67(2)
- 67(4)
- MOP Guidelines
- Constitutional Articles 11
- 21
- 38(1)
- 39A
- 41
- 300A
- principles of natural justice
- writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (04) 1
WRIT PETITION NO. 200910 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Ameetkumar Deshpande, Sanganabasava B. Patil, D.R. Ravishankar, N. Shivakumar, Sharanabasappa M. Patil, Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, Pradeep Nayak, Veeranagouda Malipatil
Basappa alias Chandrashekhar, Adiveppa alias Ashok, Rudrappa, Shankarappa, Muttappa
State of Karnataka Through Deputy Commissioner, Gadag Narendra Transmission Ltd., Project Manager, Tahasildar, Circle Inspector, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging order of Deputy Commissioner rejecting representation for shifting location of electric transmission tower and seeking mandamus for relocation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of impugned order dated 05.02.2024, production of documents, and direction to reroute/deviation/alter/shift the proposed electrical tower from point A to point C or point H.
Filing Reason
The Deputy Commissioner rejected their representation to shift the tower from the centre of their agricultural land, citing expenses to the company, despite alleged procedural lapses and lack of consent under Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, petitioners filed O.S.No.201/2023 for permanent injunction; W.P.No.203450/2023 challenging order on I.A.No.2, status quo order granted; W.P.No.200035/2024 rejected by the High Court on 29.02.2024 with direction to approach KERC; O.P.No.6/2024 before KERC rejected on 27.03.2024.
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 was passed without following the procedure under Section 67(2) and 67(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and in violation of principles of natural justice
Whether the petitioners' right to property and livelihood under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution were violated
Whether the tower relocation was feasible and should have been allowed
Submissions/Arguments
No individual notice or consent was obtained from the petitioners as required under Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The proposed tower location at the centre of the land would divide it into two halves, making cultivation unsafe and rendering the entire land waste.
Alternative points C and H are available and would cause minimal damage, but the respondents failed to consider them.
The Deputy Commissioner did not conduct an enquiry under Section 67(4) despite objections.
The rejection order dated 05.02.2024 was based solely on the ground that shifting would incur expenses, without any technical or legal reasoning.
The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dismissed the petition without properly examining the feasibility of relocation.
The respondents did not follow MOP guidelines for right of way issues.
Judgment Excerpts
In connection with the construction of 400 KV Gadag- Narendra 93 km two-way transmission line proposed by the Ministry of Energy, Government of India under Section 5(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, for the development of the Central Government’s proposed Koppal Zone Renewable Wind Power electricity line 400 KV Gadag-Narendra 93 km transmission line, Basavana Bagewadi, Nidagundi and Kolhar Taluk land owners are called for fixation of land compensation price.
the 1st respondent passed an Order on 05.02.2024 in No.RB/LAQ/CR/38/2023-24 and rejected the representation solely on the ground that shifting of location of present electric transmission tower will incur expenses to the 2nd respondent.
this Court passed an Order on 29.02.2024 in W.P. No.200035/2024 and rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioners, but extended the status quo order for a period of ten days and directed the petitioners to approach the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission
petitioners approached the KERC in O.P.No.6/2024, which came to be rejected by the Order dated 27.03.2024
Procedural History
On 22.02.2023, general notice for compensation meeting issued under Section 5(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. On 28.02.2023, meeting held and petitioners raised objections. On 27.06.2023, representation to Deputy Commissioner. On 15.07.2023 and 20.07.2023, further representations. On 05.08.2023, Deputy Commissioner directed respondent 2 to verify. Suit O.S.No.201/2023 filed for permanent injunction. W.P.No.203450/2023 filed and status quo order granted. On 05.02.2024, Deputy Commissioner rejected representation. On 29.02.2024, W.P.No.200035/2024 rejected by High Court with direction to approach KERC. On 27.03.2024, KERC rejected O.P.No.6/2024. Present writ petition filed.
Acts & Sections
- Electricity Act, 2003: 5(1), 67(2), 67(4)
- Constitution of India: Articles 11, 21, 38(1), 39A, 41, 226, 227, 300A
