In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court clarified that the District Magistrate (DM) is not required to decide on every objection raised by landowners against transmission lines unless the Telegraph Authority refers the matter to the DM.
The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava made this ruling while hearing a petition filed by Antram Goyal. The petitioner had approached the Court to compel the DM, Aligarh, to decide on his objection against the installation of high-tension towers on his private land.
“We hold that the District Magistrate is not required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Act in every case where a person... raises an objection. The DM is only required to act when the Telegraph Authority refers the matter,” — Allahabad High Court
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Dominant Parts of Trademarks Can Be Compared Without Violating Anti-Dissection Rule
The petitioner had argued that under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, he had the right to a hearing and a reasoned order from the DM. He cited past judgments like Jagir Lal v. State of U.P. and Arun Kumar v. State of U.P., where the DM had intervened in similar cases.
However, the Court noted that these earlier judgments were overridden by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. In that ruling, the Apex Court held that the Telegraph Authority has the power to lay transmission lines without obstruction, and that interference should only occur if the Authority itself refers the dispute.
Read Also:- AgustaWestland Scam: Supreme Court Rejects Christian Michel's Plea on Local Address Bail Condition
“In the larger public interest, there cannot be any obstacle in laying down transmission lines. The powers of the Telegraph Authority are vested in the Power Grid under Sections 10, 15, and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act,” — Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation Case
The High Court clarified that the DM’s role under Section 16(1) is discretionary and only becomes relevant if a formal request is made by the Telegraph Authority. The Court emphasized that landowners can still claim compensation, and if unsatisfied, they may approach the District Judge under Section 16(3).
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the DM is not legally bound to decide every representation unless the matter is formally forwarded by the Authority. The Court also granted liberty to the Telegraph Authority to act as per law and refer the case to the DM if they find it necessary.
“We grant liberty to the Telegraph Authority to act in accordance with law, including the right to refer the matter to the District Magistrate,” — Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Antram Goyal v. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Limited And Others
Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC:88345-DB
Date of Judgment: May 23, 2025
