Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. The 66 K.V. Edayar - Parur electricity tower lines pass through the properties of the petitioners which are situated in Alangad Village, Ext. P1 shows that the erection work thereof were carried out by the Kerala State Electricity Board in the year 1982. Presently, by Exts. P2 and P3 notices dated 27.2.2001, the petitioners have been advised by the first respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Boad, Edayar-that the trees, crops and buildings in the possession of the petitioners are liable to be removed, in connection with the opening of 110 KV Edayar-N.Parur line. Of course there has been an offer for payment of compensation as might be assessed. The petitioners submit that the lines are being drawn parallel to existing 66 K.V. lines. It is alleged that their properties subjected to severe disablement are further being rendered useless and to their extreme disadvantage. Though petitiones had made representations highlighting their objections, no response had come. Since the petitioners had obstructed the work attempted to be carried out by the Board officials, a crime also has been registered against them. The petitioners seek to interdict the proposed steps and in the Original Petition filed seek for directions to the respondents to consider the claims and contentions highlighted by Ext. P4, and further for arranging reference of the dispute to the second respondent - Additional District Magistrate. 2. It is also submitted that when the lines were drawn in 1982, they had not been offered any compensation whatever. The petitioners assert that unless compensation is paid, it is not permissible for the Board to draw electric lines through any properties of a third party. Relying on Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is submitted that when there is a resistance, the matter necessarily has to be placed before the District Magistrate for his decision. In view of the interim orders passed, the work has been temporarily stopped. In answer to the above submissions, reliance has been placed by the respondents on Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The project of the Board, as would be seen from the counter affidavit is to improve the transmission and distribution of electricity in the Ernakulam district. The 'System Improvement Scheme" as the project stands christened, is claimed to have been published in dailies dated 2.9.1999 (Ext. R1(a)0. The project of the Board, as would be seen from the counter affidavit is to improve the transmission and distribution of electricity in the Ernakulam district. The 'System Improvement Scheme" as the project stands christened, is claimed to have been published in dailies dated 2.9.1999 (Ext. R1(a)0. Ext R1 (b) is the copy of the Gazette notification. It is purported to be done as required under section 28 (3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. It is the case of the Board that once the Scheme is notified under section 28 read with section 42, the procedural formalities prescribed for drawing of lines, viz., those insisted by sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Electricity Act are no more to be taken notice of. 3. Along with the counter affidavit, circular issued by the Board dated 22.10.1998 also had been produced, whereunder the field officers were required to ensure publication as envisaged under Chapter V of the Electricity (Supply) Act, so as to avoid litigations and as a standard procedure. 4. Mr. Justice R. Bhaskaran, who heard the Original Petition, along with certain other cases, observed that the issue involved an important question of law as arising from the pleading which required an authoritative pronouncement and therefore had referred the matter to a Division Bench. Reliance placed by the Board on the decision reported in Rajak v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Indore (AIR 1988 MP 172) had been noticed by the learned single judge. According to the learned judge, the impact of section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act also was necessarily to be looked into in view of the observations made by the Full Bench in the decision reported in Mammoo v. State of Kerala (Air 1980 Kerala 18). Advertence had also been made to Bharat Playwoods v. KSEB (1970 KLT 872) and Varkey Joseph v. Electricity Board (1964 KLT 729), as might be relevant when the issue was examined. 5. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan represented the petitioners and Mr. Sudhi Vasudevan had appeared for the Kerala State Electricity Board. Although on the admitted facts, this Original Petition could be disposed of on a short ground and against the petitioners, since the Board is definite about their entitlement, and the matter was heard at length on the respective claims, the enquiry could be extended to the validity of Ext. R1 © circular, as well. 6. Although on the admitted facts, this Original Petition could be disposed of on a short ground and against the petitioners, since the Board is definite about their entitlement, and the matter was heard at length on the respective claims, the enquiry could be extended to the validity of Ext. R1 © circular, as well. 6. Sections 12 to 18 of the Electricity Act enumerate the powers, situations, and disabilities which might be there while laying down or placing electric lines by a licenses. A licenses in almost all cases include a Board, as per the definition. Considering the nature of the activities, necessarily almost always the licenses would have to infringe the proprietary or other rights of third parties. In public interest, therefore prescription of appropriate provisions was unavoidable. 7. Statutory safeguards to back up such contingencies as protective measures to be conferred on an authority had earlier been thought of and stood prescribed when the Indian Telegraph Act had been enacted in 1885. Sections 12 to 18 of the Electricity Act were also intended to govern such situations. Further, by a non obstants clause, section 51 of the Act authorized the State Government to confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under the Act, in the course of exercise of such work all the powers which the Telegraph Authority possessed under the Indian Telegraph Act, in respect of placing of telegraph lines. According to counsel, since the petitioners have exercised their rights of obstruction, it has now become mandatory that further steps for drawing the supply lines be continued only after securing the permission from the competent authority. According to him, sections 12 to 16 and 18 of the Electricity Act were stringent and provided safeguards against arbitrariness. Section 51 was intended to ease the rigor of the above provisions, but however it was ensured that properties of third parties could be subjected to disability only after following the due processes prescribed. 8. As pointed out briefly earlier the above objection is sought to be met by the respondent-Board by relying on Ext. R1© circular, which derives its authority from sections 28 and 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Board does not rely on Sec. 51 of the Electricity Act especially since the above could be exercised only by the State Government. R1© circular, which derives its authority from sections 28 and 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Board does not rely on Sec. 51 of the Electricity Act especially since the above could be exercised only by the State Government. It is pointed out that the Electricity (Supply) Act had been enacted for taking measures conducive to electrical development and allied matters. The Board, by section 28, is authorized to prepare schemes, inter alia concerning establishment of transmission lines. Sub-section (3) states that: "(3) Every scheme sanctioned under this section shall be published in the official gazette and in such local newspapers as the Board or, as the case may be, the generating company may consider necessary." Since reliance on section 42 as well is made, it would be necessary to quote the relevant provision for easy reference: "42, Powers to Board for placing wires, poles, etc. (1) Not withstanding anything contained in sections 12 to 16 and 18 of 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.(9 of 1910),but without prejudice to the requirements of section 17 of that Act where provision in such behalf is made in a sanctioned scheme, the Board shall have, for the placing of any wires, poles, well-brackets, stays apparatus and appliances for the transmission and distribution of electricity, or for the transmission of telegraphic or telephone communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of the works of the Board, all the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1985) with regard to a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained: PROVIDED that where a sanctioned scheme does not make such provision as aforesaid, all the provisions of sections 12 to 19 of the first-mentioned Act shall apply to the works of the Board." 9. Though not specifically referred to, advertence to Section 29 also might be relevant. This refers to schemes estimated to involve a capital expenditure exceeding such sum, as may be fixed by the Central Government, from time to time. Separate procedure is envisaged for the two classes of the Scheme. Before a scheme coming under the above section is finalized, the Board has to publish the features thereof in the official gazette and local newspapers so as to receive representations from interested persons. Separate procedure is envisaged for the two classes of the Scheme. Before a scheme coming under the above section is finalized, the Board has to publish the features thereof in the official gazette and local newspapers so as to receive representations from interested persons. After considering such representations, and after making further enquiries, the scheme, if it requires modification, shall be finally prepared and is to be submitted to the notified authority, viz., Central Electricity Authority. In respect of the schemes under section 28, of course this is not a procedure to be followed. In that, as soon as the scheme is sanctioned, the same could be forwarded to the Authority and every scheme sanctioned under the section is to be published in the official gazette and such local news papers as the Board may consider it necessary. It is evident that the scheme that has been relied on by the Board in the present dispute is the one coming under section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. What is relevant is that the Board under section 42 has been conferred powers enjoyed by the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act. Publication having been carried out, the Standing Counsel asserts that the Board is free to proceed straight away, for placing electric lines and consent is immaterial. In this context, we may also look into section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act.Publicaion have been carried out, the standing counsel asserts the Board is free to proceed straight away, for placing electricity lines and consent is immaterial. In this context, We may also look into section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act. "10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. In this context, We may also look into section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act. "10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property: PROVIDED THAT- (a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained bythe Central Government, or to be so established or maintained: (b) the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c); shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers." 10. Thus it is competent for the Board to exercise powers of entry in respect of properties including those referred to in clause (d). But this does not end here. Section 16(1) also comes in Part III of the Telegraph Act. The said section in fact specifically makes reference to the class of effected persons coming under the sweep of section 10 (d). If the exercise of powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate can permit the telegraph authority to exercise them. We cannot read Section 42 as conferring powers alone and not the obligations. In fact understanding the provision as suggested by the Board will be violative of principles of fair play. It is indisputable that resistance can be taken cognizance of only after the Magistrate passes an order. We cannot read Section 42 as conferring powers alone and not the obligations. In fact understanding the provision as suggested by the Board will be violative of principles of fair play. It is indisputable that resistance can be taken cognizance of only after the Magistrate passes an order. It is also difficult to see anything in section 28 or section 42 in the Electricity (Supply) Act, enabling the Board to dispense with the procedural formalities, that are to be gone through in an instance where there is obstruction by a land holder. Looking from this point of view, Ext. R1(c)evidently proceeds on a misconception when it says: "Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 permits the State Electricity Boards to draw lines through private properties without obtaining prior sanction from the District Collector and District Magistrate eventhough there is objection from the land owners. But the powers given under the above section can be invoked only where the drawal of the line of part of a sanctioned scheme and the scheme is published." If by conferment of powers under Part III of the Telegraph Act, the Board is entitled to proceed for laying lines, necessarily the disabilities spoken to by such authorizing provision also automatically has to follow. Powers under section 10 are not independent as such, but is circumscribed by section 16(1) by specifid recital. The Standing Counsel stoutly claimed that the predominant attempt by Ext. R1(C)was to simplify and streamline procedure and therby avoid delay. But it has to be observed that the desired objective has not been secured by the import of section 28 or 42 of the Supply Act, as they presently stand. 11. The Board relied on Exts. R1(a) and R1(b) the notifications respectively made in a news paper and gazette, in support of its contention that the Scheme stands appropriately notified. Of them, Ext. R1(a) is a notification under section 74 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, for facilitating entry, No reference is made either to section 28 or section 42. Ext. R1 (b) may conform to section 28(3), but the pre-conditions of news paper publication have not been there in respect of the Scheme. The stand taken by the Board that by virtue of Ext. R1(a) or Ext. R1(b), the liability to get clearance from the District Magistrate under section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act stand exempted has not been substantiated. R1 (b) may conform to section 28(3), but the pre-conditions of news paper publication have not been there in respect of the Scheme. The stand taken by the Board that by virtue of Ext. R1(a) or Ext. R1(b), the liability to get clearance from the District Magistrate under section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act stand exempted has not been substantiated. Perhaps the notification entitles the Board to ignore sections 12 to 19 of the Electricity Act, but nevertheless the powers gained are that available under Part III of the Telegraph Act, where section 16(i) also exists. 12. Mr. Sudhi Vasudevan thereupon brought to our attention a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajak & Ors. V. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Indore (Air 1988 MP 172), canvassing the position that once the notification envisaged under section 28 read with section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act is published, the affected party had only a right for claiming compensation. It has been held as following: "15. In view of the power vested in the Generating Company NTPC under S. 42 of the Act read with Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, there can be no valid objection by the petitioners to the implementation of the sanctioned scheme either on the principles of natural justice or on the ground of unauthorized user of petitioners; land in respect of which compensation has been provided for under proviso (d) to S. 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act." But we find that the question posed in the present Original Petition, concerning the impact of section 16(1) has not been gone into at all. The attack was against the validity of the Scheme, by raising a contention that a modification, mid way was not authorized. The decision does not help in any way to resolve the contention presently urged by the petitioner. Without better and more explicit authorization, we are not prepared to hold that sections 28 and 47 are 13. Though reference has been made to the decision reported in AIR 1980 Kerala 18 (cited supra), the question there was whether the powers under section 16(1) were administrative or quasi judicial, and whether the affected party could agitate the issue in a revision proceedings. In the Bharath Playwood case (cited supra) as well the issue agitated was not those agitated in this Original Petition. In Joseph Varkey's case (1964 KLT 79) Mr. In the Bharath Playwood case (cited supra) as well the issue agitated was not those agitated in this Original Petition. In Joseph Varkey's case (1964 KLT 79) Mr. Justice P. Govindan Nair, as he then was, referred to the scope of section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act and section 51 of the Electricity Act. His Lordship was of the view that the policy behind the statute appeared to be one of expendiency in public interest, which can and should override private rights in given circumstances. But apart from holding that section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act was in addition to and cannot infringe the powers under section 51 of the Electricity Act, further discussion relevant for the purpose of this case is not seen pursued. Therefore, we have only the assertion of the Board that a notification under section 42 overrides rights of third parties. At best, it can be stated that powers conferred on the State Government under section 51 of the Electricity Act was found to be inadequate to meet the requirement of the Board and power by section 42 has been conferred on the Board direct. How far this enables the Board in its pursuits, we are not called for to decide for the purpose of this case as the decision could be rested on other factors. 14. As had been hinted earlier, in view of the materials that have forthcome, it is not possible for the petitioner to press for reliefs. Though the Electricity (Supply) Act is a particular and specifid enactment, and the Indian Electricity Act is a general law, care has been taken by section 70 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, that save as otherwise provided, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, the Indian Electricity Act. In the Original Petition, it has been admitted that a 66 K.V. line already passes through the property of the petitioners, laid as early as in 1982. Under the heading "works" by section 12 the Indian Electricity Act deals with the right of the licensee to attend to the work of laying down or placing electric supply lines. Within the area of supply, a licensee is empowered to lay down and place electric supply lines and (attend) other works, repair, alter or remove the same, and do all other acts necessary for the supply of energy. Within the area of supply, a licensee is empowered to lay down and place electric supply lines and (attend) other works, repair, alter or remove the same, and do all other acts necessary for the supply of energy. But such works are not authorized to be done, without the consent of the owner or occupier concerned, over or under a land not dedicated to public use unless whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by the licensee. (See section 12 (2)). The petitioners have no case that the 66 K.V. line already laid was unauthorized: their submission was that they had not been compensated for the intervention. As such the petitioners claim is to be confined to claim for compensation (if admissible of course) for the present work undertaken, referred to in Exts. R1(a) and R1(b), and no grounds are available to them to obstruct the work, as the intervention is legal and permissible. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, it may not be possible to hold that the laying of 110 K.V. line is illegal or violative of the property rights of the petitioners. About the proposal of additional work, they have been given public notice. It is not expected that the matter has once again to be taken to the District magistrate, as the petitioners' relation with the Kerala State Electricity Board has been placed in an altogether different plane, and beyond interference from any quarter. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Original Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.