Honble SHETHNA, J. – Learned counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner raised two submissions in this matter, (i) the impugned notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) was issued without considering the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act and (ii) the land which was sought to be acquired by the State Govt. for the Rajasthan State Electricity Board is a company, and as such without considering the provisions of Sections 39, 40,41 and 42 of the Act. (2). First submission raised by Mr. Purohit has no substance because the Govt. has applied urgency clause and in exercise of its powers, under Section 17 (4) of the Act the notification was ordered to be issued under Section 6 of the Act. Mr. Jain for the State has pointed out from the record that Mahant of Idol Thakurji Temple was going to sell the land after dividing the same into plots, therefore, urgency clause had to apply. Once the urgency clause is applied and there is reasonable justification for the same then there is no question of considering the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner has said in the petition that the objections filed under Section 5A to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act were not taken into consideration. The copy of the same was not annexed with the petition. But, the same was produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner for its perusal. Mr. Jain for the State has produced the entire record and submitted that no such objections were ever filed, therefore, there was no question of considering the same. In reply affidavit also it has been stated that no such objections were filed by the petitioner under Section 5 A of the Act. Therefore, the submission made by Mr. Purohit for the petitioner that without considering the objections filed by the petitioner the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued has to be rejected and it is rejected. (3). Second submission of Mr. Purohit is regarding non-consideration of provisions of Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. Therefore, the submission made by Mr. Purohit for the petitioner that without considering the objections filed by the petitioner the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued has to be rejected and it is rejected. (3). Second submission of Mr. Purohit is regarding non-consideration of provisions of Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. He submitted that the land was sought to be acquired for R.S.E.B. which is a company, therefore, it could not have been done without prior consideration of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Mr. Jain for the State submitted that though the Rajasthan State Electricity Board is a company, but it stands different from other private or public companies. It is for the welfare of the public at large the land was sought to be acquired for the establishment of 132 KVA Grid Sub Station for the maintenance and regular supply of electricity to remove voltage problems. It was in the interest of public at large, therefore, he submitted that there was no question of considering the provisions of Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. He submitted that once the urgency clause applied then even if it is a company then also there was no need to consider the same. (4). There is a lot of substance in the submission made by Mr. Jain that when the urgency clause is applied then there is no question of considering the applicability of Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. In my opinion, the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board is a company which is different from other ordinary private or public company. For acquisition of land in favour of such com- pany like RSEB there is no need for observing formalities provided under Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. (5). Before parting I must state that learned counsel Shri Mridul Jain for the RSEB stated that because of the Stay granted by this Court the Company could not get possession from the petitioner and they had to construct a small sub station to meet with the requirements of village people. If they get the possession of the land from the petitioner then the company is immediately going to construct 132 KVA Grid Sub-Station on the said land, it will minimise the hardships of the people, who are suffering since long. If they get the possession of the land from the petitioner then the company is immediately going to construct 132 KVA Grid Sub-Station on the said land, it will minimise the hardships of the people, who are suffering since long. He, therefore, submitted that the Stay be vacated forthwith. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. Stay granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.