ORDER : Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the writ. 2. What is sought to be challenged in this writ is a notification issued by the State under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. So far as the public purpose for which the land in question is acquired pursuant to impugned notification is concerned, cannot be disputed in the sense that the purpose is infact for a public cause. The land is being acquired for establishment of 400 KVA sub-station. Undoubtedly, it is a public cause and a land can always be acquired for accomplishing such purpose. Indeed, no challenge was laid by the petitioner on this ground in the petition. 4. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there was no urgency for acquiring the land and hence, the impugned notification is bad. In other words, the submission was that there was no case for applying the provisions of section 17 of the Act in the present case. I find no substance in this submission. It is now the settled view of the Supreme Court that it is the subjective satisfaction of the State that matters in applying the urgency clause. The establishment of power station for production of electricity in State which is passing through the acute shortage of electricity is enough for indicating urgency in acquisition. Indeed, it is a case of real urgency because the production of electricity is always conceived for the benefit of public at large. It is much more so for State of M.P. I, therefore, find no case to accept the submission that there was no urgency in the acquisition. 5. Another submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the some alternative land belonging to State in the same area was equally available to the State for setting up the station and hence, the same could have been used for setting up the station rather than the land belonging to petitioner. I find no merit in the submission. The document (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner in clear terms shows that out of the total land needed for setting up the station, 1,808 Hectares of land belongs to State and remaining land is that of private owners. It cannot thus, be said that the land of State is not affected. I find no merit in the submission. The document (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner in clear terms shows that out of the total land needed for setting up the station, 1,808 Hectares of land belongs to State and remaining land is that of private owners. It cannot thus, be said that the land of State is not affected. Infact, it is very much a part of the acquisition. 6. It is not for the petitioner to suggest to State or to experts as to which land is more suitable for establishing the station. It is on the other hand the work of experts in the field to choose and decide as to which of the land is best suited for setting up the power station. This involves several technical factors which the State and the appropriate authorities responsible for acquisition alone can decide. Since, in this case the cite chosen by the authorities was best suited for establishing the station and hence, it was acquired. It being the subjective satisfaction of the authorities, there can be no interference in such discretion. Infact, it does not involve any judicial debate as such. 7. No other issue was urged except what is taken note of supra. Petition, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.