JUDGMENT : S.J. HYDER, J. 1. The trail court by its judgment and decree dated April 23, 1971 passed a decree against the Defendant-Appellant in these terms. The suit is decreed with costs. The Defendants are restrained from spreading electric line over or under any part of the Plaintiff's Khasra No. 245 measuring 35 Bigha 17 Biswa 11 Biswansi of village Nala without the permission of the Plaintiff. 2. The said decree was affirmed by the first court of appeal. The U.P. State Electricity Board, Defendant-Appellant, has appealed to this Court u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The case of the Plaintiffs-Respondents, shortly stated, was that they were Bhumidhars of Khasra Plot No. 245 and west of the said plot is the field of Defendant-Respondent No. 5 who had applied to the Appellant for electric connection to run a tube-well in his field. The Appellant has allowed the said application and was laying an electric line from the tube-well of the Plaintiffs-Respondents and was intending to fix poles in their plot No. 245 for the said purpose. It was contended that the action of the Defendant-Appellant in erecting a supply line over the field of the Plaintiffs-Respondents was illegal and unwarranted and was likely to cause damage to the Plaintiffs-Respondents. The suit was contested by the Appellant Board. It was contended on its behalf that under a Notification published in U.P. Government Gazette dated January 9, 1971, in the exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government u/s 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, the Board was entitled to erect a supply line through the plot of the Plaintiffs Respondents. 4. The contention advanced on behalf of the Board has not found favour with the two courts below. They have held that on a reading of the provisions contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, there was a distinction between an electricity supply line and electricity transmission line. According to them, while a notification empowering a licensee to erect an electric transmission line could be delegated to a licensee u/s 51 of the Act, no such power could be conferred on it for laying an electricity supply line. The emphasis in the judgment of the two courts below is on the point that there is a real difference between a transmission line and a supply line under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 5. The emphasis in the judgment of the two courts below is on the point that there is a real difference between a transmission line and a supply line under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 5. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer certain provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Section 2 of the Act is the definition clause. Clauses (f), (g), (i) and (1) are relevant and are reproduced below: (f) "electric supply-line" means a wire, conductor or other means used for conveying, transmitting or distributing energy (whether by overhead line or underground cable), together with any casting, coating, covering tube, pipe or insulator enclosing, surrounding or supporting the same or any part thereof, or any apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of so conveying, transmitting or distributing such energy and includes any support, cross-arm, stay, strut or safety device erected or set-up for that purpose. (g) "energy" means electrical energy- (i) generated, transmitted or supplied for any purpose, or (ii) used for any purpose except the transmission of a message. (i) "main" means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended to be, supplied to the public. (1) "service line" means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended to be supplied- (i) to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the supplier's premises, or (ii) from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on adjoining premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main. 6. Section 12 of the Act, inter alia, provides that any licensee may from time to time, but subject always to the terms and conditions of his licence, within the area of supply, or, when permitted by the terms of his licence to lay down or place electric supply lines without the area of supply lay down and place electric supply lines and other works and to do all other acts necessary for the supply of energy. The said section further goes on to say that nothing contained therein shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, to lay down or place any electric supply line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use. Section 51 of the Act has an important bearing in the case and is, therefore, reproduced in its entirety: 51. Exercise in certain cases of powers of telegraph authority.--Notwithstanding anything in Sections 12 - 16 (both inclusive) and Sections 18 and 19 the State Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy or for the purposes of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions (if any) as the State Government may think fit to impose, and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act, with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained. 7. It is not in dispute between the parties that the Appellant Board is a licensee within the meaning of the Act. It is also not controverted on behalf of the Plaintiffs-Respondents that the State Government issued a Notification dated 30-12-1970 which was published in the U.P. Government Gazette on January 9, 1971. The notification has been quoted in the judgment of the trial court and is extracted below for the sake of convenience: In exercise of the powers u/s 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910(Act No. IX of 1910), and in super cession of notification No. 4411-EL/XXIII PB. The notification has been quoted in the judgment of the trial court and is extracted below for the sake of convenience: In exercise of the powers u/s 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910(Act No. IX of 1910), and in super cession of notification No. 4411-EL/XXIII PB. 333-61, dated November 28,1963, the Governor is pleased to confer, subject to the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (Act No. XIII of 1885), upon (i) the U.P. State Electricity Board, (ii) the Chief Engineer (Hydel), (iii)(a) the General Manager, (b) Distribution Engineer, (c) Mains Superintendent and (d) Executive Engineer (Construction) of Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration, (iv) the Chief Project Engineer, U.P. State Electricity Board, (v)(a) the Superintending Engineers and (b) the Executive Engineers under the service of the U.P. State Electricity Board for placing of the electric supply lines and the appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraphs Act 1885 (Act No. XIII of 1885), with respect to the placing of the telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be established or maintained by it. Such powers shall be exercised by the U.P. State Electricity Board, the Chief Engineer (Hydel), the General Manager, Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration and the Chief Project Engineer, U.P. State Electricity Board, throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh and by (i)(a) the Distribution Engineer, (b) Mains Superintendent and (c) the Executive Engineer (Construction), Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration and (ii)(a) the Superintending Engineer and (b) the Executive Engineers under the service of the U.P. State Electricity Board within the respective areas allotted to their jurisdiction from time to time by (i) the KESA or (ii) the U.P. State Electricity Board as the case may be. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the said notification is of wide amplitude and it confers plenary powers on the Appellant Board and the officers mentioned in the notification of placing electricity supply lines on the property belonging to others wherever it deems fit and proper. He contended that the distinction drawn by the two courts below between an electricity supply line and an electricity transmission line is wholly unreal and can not be sustained. 9. He contended that the distinction drawn by the two courts below between an electricity supply line and an electricity transmission line is wholly unreal and can not be sustained. 9. In support of his argument, Learned Counsel invited my attention to Clauses (f), (i) and (1) of Section 2 of the Act which have already been quoted above. According to the Learned Counsel, 'electricity supply line is the genus and the 'main' and 'service lines are its species. In other words, his argument was that if the power u/s 51 of the Act could be conferred on the licensee for laying an electricity supply line, that would take within its ambit the power to lay the 'main' and also 'service line' as defined in the Act. He submitted that the expression 'transmission line' has not been defined in the Act and is wholly foreign to its provisions and, as such, the two courts have erred in drawing a distinction between a transmission line and a supply line. He further submitted that the generation, transmission and supply of electricity is a single process and that it is inconceivable for electricity to be generated without its being transmitted and supplied. He also argued that in a similar manner, it is inconceivable to think of transmission and supply of electric energy without its generation. 10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, referred to the definition of 'energy' contained in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act and tried to make out that generation, transmission and supply are distinct processes. According to him, it is evident from a reading of Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act that electrical energy may be either generated, transmitted or supplied. He submitted that all these three processes are distinct and, therefore, transmission of energy has to be treated separately from its supply. He pushed the argument to its extreme limit and urged that transmission lines have to be treated separately from supply lines and according to him, the only power delegated under the notification dated December 30, 1970 relates to laying of transmission lines and the Electricity Board and the public officers mentioned therein cannot go beyond the ambit of the notification. It is true that generation, transmission and supply of electrical energy are processes which are closely interlinked. It is true that generation, transmission and supply of electrical energy are processes which are closely interlinked. If there is no generation of electrical energy, the question of its transmission or supply does not arise. Though these processes may be interlinked, they are nevertheless separate processes and it is not possible to hold that transmission and supply of electrical energy is included in generation on a parity of reasoning the supply of the said energy cannot be equated with its generation or transmission. The controversy on this point is, however, wholly unnecessary for the decision of this second appeal and it may not be pursued any further. 11. Section 51 of the Act however, only speaks of the supply lines. The expression 'supply line' has been defined in Section 2 Clause (f) of the Act and it is a generic expression which includes within its ambit 'main' and also 'service line'. On a fair reading of Section 51 of the Act, it cannot be said that it is only concerned with 'main' and does not include within its ambit 'service line'. The word 'transmission' no doubt also occurs in the notification referred to above but the said word is only used in the context of 'appliance' and 'apparatus'. Even otherwise the word 'transmission' has not been defined in the Act itself. Electrical energy is also transmitted to the consumer through 'service line. Merely because the word 'transmission' occurs in the notification u/s 51 of the Act, it cannot be held that it has reference to electric main as distinguished from service line. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the reasoning employed by the two courts below that Section 51 of the Act and the notification issued thereunder cannot be called in aid for sustaining the power vested in the Board to fix electric poles in the property belonging to the Plaintiff-Respondent. 12. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent based on Section 12(2) of the Act is also not sustainable. True it is that under the said provision of law, a licensee cannot without the consent of the owner or occupier concerned place any electric supply line or other work on property belonging to such owner or occupier without obtaining his previous consent. Section 51 of the Act, however, begins with the word 'notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 - 16 both inclusive'. Section 51 of the Act, however, begins with the word 'notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 - 16 both inclusive'. Thus Section 51 is a non-obstante clause and it overrides the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. In other words, Section 12 must yield if there is a conflict between the said provision and Section 51 of the Act. 13. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent next urged that a service line is the property of the consumer and that in view of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 the power u/s 51 could not be exercised in respect of the service lines. Section 51 of the Act no doubt makes the power u/s 51 exercisable inter alia subject to the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. However, there is no material on record to sustain the submission that the service line laid by the licensee for supply of electric energy to a consumer is the property of the consumer and not of the licensee (now the Electricity Board). Before raising such argument, the Plaintiff-Respondent should have raised the question before the trial court and produced evidence to substantiate it. It has failed to do so. I am, therefore, unable to accept this argument also. 14. The result is that this second appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The decrees of the two courts below are set aside. The suit of the Plaintiff-Respondent is dismissed with costs throughout.