The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed two connected writ petitions challenging the sanctioned alignment and construction of the second circuit of the 132 KV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line in Village Simrai, Mandideep. The Court upheld the statutory powers exercised for laying the line and found no arbitrariness in the selected alignment.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal delivered the common judgment on August 31, 2026.
Background
In W.P. No. 49694 of 2025, Daulat Ram Engineering Services Ltd. and Nasa Corporation challenged the notification dated June 10, 2024, published on July 5, 2024, sanctioning the second-circuit stringing of the 132 KV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line. They also challenged the Collector, Raisen’s order dated July 30, 2025, passed under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, permitting the line to be laid for supplying electricity to the new unit of Nahar Poly Films Ltd.
The dispute concerned the alignment of the transmission line near the petitioners’ industrial properties in Village Simrai, Mandideep. Tower No. 8 was proposed on Nasa Corporation’s land, while no tower was proposed on Daulat Ram Engineering Services Ltd.’s frontage. An earlier alignment was rejected by MPPTCL’s technical team because a proposed tower would have stood only 3.5 metres from an existing gas pipeline, contrary to the safety clearance prescribed under Regulation 63(1) of the CEA Regulations, 2023.
The petitioners later suggested another route, but it was also rejected after being found to run over residential accommodation and again raise pipeline-clearance concerns. When Petitioner No.1 obstructed the work, the SDO(R), Goharganj restrained it by an order dated December 2, 2025. Nahar Poly Films Ltd. thereafter filed a civil suit and approached the High Court, which granted interim protection on December 10, 2025 in relation to the transmission corridor.
The Court, however, noted that the State had conferred powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 upon MPPTCL, giving it the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In such circumstances, the consent requirement under Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 did not apply.
The Bench relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., holding that Section 164 powers override the ordinary consent requirement.
The Court observed:
"Once Section 164 dispenses with landowner consent, no landowner may insist upon an alignment that simply avoids his own land; the remedy that survives is compensation under Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act."
The Court also found that the alternative route suggested by the petitioners had earlier been rejected because it would breach the required safety clearance from an existing gas pipeline. It held that technical decisions concerning transmission-line alignment should not ordinarily be substituted by the Court’s own assessment.
The Bench further declined to decide disputed factual claims concerning structures allegedly situated beneath the proposed alignment, observing that such issues could be examined by the civil court or in compensation proceedings.
The connected W.P. No. 32213 of 2025 was filed by Adeel Siddiqui and Nadir Siddiqui concerning Khasra No. 115/3(S). They alleged that their land had been wrongly included in the project alignment. The Court held that whether the land actually fell within the final alignment involved factual and field verification issues.
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions. It left the petitioners free to pursue compensation remedies under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act or otherwise in accordance with law.
The petitions were dismissed with costs. Each petitioner was directed to pay ₹1 lakh to Nahar Poly Films Ltd., resulting in total costs of ₹2 lakh.
Case Title: Daulat Ram Engineering Services Ltd. and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others — W.P. No. 49694 of 2025
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal
