Amrl Hitech City LTD. vs. The Managing Director

Facts

The petitioner, AMRL Hitech City Ltd., sought to quash orders compelling it to bear "defrayment costs" for deviating approved transmission line routes. TANTRANSCO planned to erect 230 KV and 110 KV transmission lines to cater to the Nanguneri SEZ's power demand. The petitioner, developing an SEZ on its land, expressed reservations as the proposed lines would cut across its property and hinder development. After deliberations, TANTRANSCO agreed to deviation but stipulated that the petitioner must bear the extra costs. The petitioner requested proceeding with a deviated plan identified during a joint survey on December 8, 2020. The impugned orders were issued by TANTRANSCO officials, including the Executive Engineer and Superintendenting Engineer.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the project implemented by the respondents. It reasoned that the issues involved were technical and cost-related, falling within the realm of expertise, and the Court was ill-equipped to decide such matters. Citing Supreme Court caution, the Court stated it could not sit in appeal over expert decisions. The Court also noted that Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, relied upon by the petitioner, could only be invoked after the tower was laid, and the current case involved work in progress. While acknowledging potential justifications on both sides, the Court found it infeasible to adjudicate the dispute due to a lack of necessary expertise. The Court suggested that the petitioner make a representation to the Ministry of Industry to coordinate with the Ministry of Electricity to find a solution, emphasizing the need for coordinated efforts for industrial development. No further orders were passed in the writ petitions, and the matter was left open for inter-ministerial resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can adjudicate on technical and cost-related issues concerning the deviation of electricity transmission lines, particularly when the respondents have the power of a Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as conferred by G.O(MS) No.16, dated 23.02.2012? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents' demand for defrayment costs for deviating the approved route was arbitrary and illegal. They relied on Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act to question the imposition of costs. The petitioner argued that a deviated plan, identified during a joint survey, should be considered to avoid hindering SEZ development. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the issue involved technical expertise and cost factors, which are beyond the purview of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226. They asserted their authority to lay transmission lines and that the petitioner should bear the costs associated with any deviation from the approved plan. The respondents contended that Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act was not applicable as the work was still in progress.