CASE NAME: Daulat Ram Engineering Services Ltd v State of Madhya Pradesh
CASE NUMBER: Writ Petition No. 49694 of 2025 with Writ Petition No. 32213 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
DATE: 31 August, 2026
Quorum: Justice Vivek Rusia, Acting Chief Justice, and Justice Pradeep Mittal
FACTS
Both writ petitions arose from the same project concerning second-circuit stringing of the 132 KV DCSS Mandideep–Nahar Transmission Line.
In W.P. No. 49694 of 2025, Daulat Ram Engineering Services Ltd. and Nasa Corporation challenged the notification sanctioning the transmission line and the Collector’s order dated 30 July 2025 permitting construction under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioners owned industrial land at Village Simrai, Mandideep. They objected to the proposed alignment, particularly Tower No. 8, which was to be erected on Nasa Corporation’s land, while the line would pass over the frontage and parking area of Daulat Ram’s premises.
The petitioners proposed an alternative alignment. MPPTCL rejected it on technical grounds because the proposed tower would have been only 3.5 metres from an existing gas pipeline, contrary to Regulation 63(1) of the Central Electricity Authority Regulations, 2023. The petitioners alleged that construction was being carried out without their consent, notice or proper consideration of safety concerns.
In W.P No. 32213 of 2025, Adeel Siddiqui and another challenged the inclusion of Khasra No. 115/3 in the survey and alignment plan. They claimed that the revenue records and earlier communications did not include their land and that the khasra number appeared only in the report prepared by the survey agency. They sought exclusion of their land and compensation for any affected area.
ISSUES
- Whether a Section 164 notification dispenses with owner consent under Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.
- Whether the rejected alternate alignment was arbitrary under Article 226.
- Whether suppression of a connected proceeding and delay barred relief.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 164, Electricity Act, 2003 – confers Telegraph Authority powers on a licensee.
- Section 67 & 176(2)(e), Electricity Act, 2003 – licensee’s general power to carry out works, and the rule-making power behind it.
- Rules 3(a)/3(4), Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 – consent requirement, excluded once Section 164 applies.
- Sections 10 & 16, Telegraph Act, 1885 – power to place lines over private property, and the compensation/dispute forum.
- Regulation 63(1), CEA Safety Regulations, 2023 – pipeline clearance for towers.
- Section 20-A, Specific Relief Act, 1963 – guards against injunctions on substantially completed works.
- Article 226, Constitution of India – writ jurisdiction
- Case laws relied upon: Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143; Century Rayon Ltd. v. IVP Ltd, (2021) 20 SCC 758; K. Jayaram v Bangalore Development Authority, (2022) 12 SCC 815; K.D. Sharma v Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners: The construction was done without notice or consent and this contravened Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules and Regulation 63(1) of the CEA Safety Regulations. Section 164 was also not relevant to a line meant for a private consumer, more so when the Notification had mentioned one entity (Nahar Spinning Mills) and the work had in fact benefited another entity (Nahar Poly Films). Their alternative alignment was arbitrarily and unreasonably denied and the construction was hazardous to workers due to its proximity to high mast installations and cargo operations.
Respondents: Respondents: Once powers of Telegraph Authority stand conferred under Section 164, any grievance regarding alignment or compensation would be exclusively before the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act and not in a writ petition. No tower was proposed on Petitioner No.1’s land at all; both contested towers fell within the highway’s no-construction zone. The alignment now urged by the petitioners was the very route rejected a year earlier for breaching pipeline clearance. The petitioners had also suppressed the pendency of a related civil suit and an earlier restraint order served at their own gate, falsely declaring “Nil” in the petition.
ANALYSIS
The Court relied principally on Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143. It held that once powers under Section 164 are conferred, the consent requirement under Rule 3(a) does not apply because of the specific exception in Rule 3(4). MPPTCL was therefore entitled to exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph ActA landowner cannot insist on an alignment that avoids his own plot; his remedy is compensation under Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3), a claim the petitioners had not made.
The rejected route breached the same pipeline clearance the petitioners relied upon, crossed a residential colony whose owners were not before the Court, and had been turned down nearly a year before their notice. Relying on Century Rayon Ltd. v. IVP Ltd., the Bench held that a line first serving one industrial unit does not lose its statutory character, since ownership remained with the licensee. Disputed claims about frontage structures were left to the civil court seized of that matter.
Citing K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, the Court held a bare “Nil” disclosure of prior proceedings, made days after an interim order was affixed at the petitioner’s own gate, was not innocent and by itself justified refusing relief. The petition also came seventeen months after the Notification, after most towers had gone up. The connected petition fared no better: whether the khasra fell within the alignment was a factual question for the revenue authorities, leaving compensation as the remedy.
JUDGMENT
Both writ petitions were dismissed. The Notification and the Collector’s order were upheld as validly issued under Section 164 read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, with no illegality found. Each set of petitioners was directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000 to Nahar Poly Films Ltd.
CONCLUSION
The ruling draws a firm line between a landowner’s right to compensation for a line crossing his property and his right to block it. Once Telegraph Authority powers stand conferred under Section 164, consent gives way to compensation, and a writ court will not reweigh an alignment grounded in a documented safety survey. It also warns that withholding a connected proceeding, or sitting on a notified project until it is mostly built, can defeat relief on that ground alone.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: HARSHMEET KAUR SUDAN
