JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal involves balancing of individual rights with public rights. It arises out of an order passed by the trial Court granting temporary injunction in the following setting. THE FACTS 2. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (the Corporation) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its shares are owned by the President of India: it is a Central Government Company. 3. The main purpose of the Corporation is to set up national infrastructure for distribution of electricity. 4. The Corporation has an electric sub-station in district Bareilly and another at Mandola, district Ghaziabad. The sub-station at Mandola is meant for distributing electricity in the national capital region (the NCR). 5. There is already an electric transmission line between Bareilly and Mandola sub-stations. However, in order to augment the distribution of electricity in the NCR, a proposal was made to construct loon-in and loop-out (LILO) electrical line between Bareilly and Mandola via Meerut (the Project). It was granted sanction on 3.11.2009. 6. In pursuance of the Project, the Corporation started erecting and stringing the towers. Most of the towers have been erected, however, when the Corporation started erecting the tower on plot No. 279 of village Badnauli, Tehsil Hapur, district Ghaziabad. it was objected by Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta and others (the contesting respondents). They filed OS No. 212 of 2011 for permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from erecting the tower and laying overload electricity lines on the plot. 7. The main allegation in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiffs are owners of plots number 278 and 279 in village Badnauli, tehsil Hapur, district Ghaziabad; Kanta Construction is the registered firm of the contesting respondents. It manufactures cemented sewer pipes on the plots; The Corporation has marked the land for erecting tower without information to them; In case tower is erected then they will not able to run the factory; The tower can easily be constructed in the adjacent land. 8. In the aforesaid suit, the contesting respondents also filed an application for a temporary injunction. 8. In the aforesaid suit, the contesting respondents also filed an application for a temporary injunction. This application has been allowed on 7.7.2011 on the following findings: (a) The Corporation was granted permission on 3.11.2009 but no work has been done; (b) In case the Corporation is permitted to complete the work; The contesting respondent would be deprived of exercising their Bhumidhari rights; The employment of employees in the factory would come to an end; (c) There would always be possibility of danger because of overhead electric lines. Hence the present appeal by the Corporation. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 9. We have heard Sri Anjani Mishra, counsel for the Corporation and Sri SK Tyagi and Sri UN Sharma, counsel for the contesting respondents. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being decided at this stage. The following points arise for determination in the appeal: (i) Whether the Corporation has power to erect the towers or lay overhead electrical lines; (ii) Can the corporation erect the tower and lay overhead electric lines without permission of the relevant authority under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (The 2006 Rules); (iii) Whether the contesting respondents are entitled to temporary injunction. 1st POINT: CORPORATION HAS POWER 10. The generation and distribution of electricity was governed by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (the Old Act). At present, it has been replaced by the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act). 11. The old Act and the Act envisage different kinds of utilities and licences: one of them is transmission utility and transmission licence. The Corporation was declared Central Transmission Utility under Section 27(A) (i) of the Old Act by the notification dated 31.12.1998. It has also been so declared under section 38 (1) of the Act by the notification dated 27.11.2003. 12. The Act also defines who is a licensee under Section 2(39) of the Act. It means a person, who has been granted a licence under Section 14 of the Act. 13. Section 14 of the Act empowers the appropriate commission to grant a licence. Among the other licenses, a person can be granted transmission licence to transmit electricity. However, proviso to section 14 provides that the Central Government Transmission Utility or the State transmission utility is deemed to be transmission licensee under the Act. 14. 13. Section 14 of the Act empowers the appropriate commission to grant a licence. Among the other licenses, a person can be granted transmission licence to transmit electricity. However, proviso to section 14 provides that the Central Government Transmission Utility or the State transmission utility is deemed to be transmission licensee under the Act. 14. The Corporation has been declared to be a Central Transmission Utility and is a transmission licensee under the Act. 15. Section 164 of the Act is titled as ‘Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases’. It empowers appropriate Government to empower any public officer or any other licensee or any person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act with the same powers to place electric lines or electrical posts as the telegraph authority possesses under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1985) (the Telegraph Act). 16. The Central Government is the appropriate Government for the Corporation. It has issued a notification in favour of the Corporation on 24.12.2003 under section 164 of the Act. In view of this, the Corporation is entitled to exercise the same powers as a telegraph authority has while placing lines or posts under the Telegraph Act. 17. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act is titled ‘Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts’. It empowers them to place and maintain: the telegraph lines under, over, along, or across; and Posts in or upon, any immovable property. Under this section, a telegraph authority is empowered to erect poles and place telegraph line over any immovable property. 18. The Corporation has been empowered under section 164 of the Act to exercise powers of the telegraph authorities including the power under section 10 of the Telegraph Act. It can also erect towers on any immovable property and lay overhead electrical lines over any immovable property. This was also so held by our Court (see below)1. 2nd POINT: PERMISSION OF DM— NOT REQUIRED. 19. It can also erect towers on any immovable property and lay overhead electrical lines over any immovable property. This was also so held by our Court (see below)1. 2nd POINT: PERMISSION OF DM— NOT REQUIRED. 19. The counsel for the contesting respondents submits that: The corporation is a licensee under the Act but it can exercise powers subject to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder; The 2006 Rules have been framed under the Act and Corporation is bound by it; Under Rule 3(1) to 3(3) of the 2006 Rules, in case the owner objects to erection/ construction then it can only be done with the permission of the DM or commissioner of police or the any other officer authorised by the State Government; In this case, no permission was obtained and the erection of the tower and laying of overhead line is illegal. 20. The Corporation is a transmission licensee under the Act and can only function subject to Act and the rules framed thereunder: it is bound by the 2006 Rules. 21. The aforesaid proposition is not disputed by the counsel for the Corporation. However, he submits that the 2006 Rules do not apply to the Corporation for the following reason: (i) Rule 3(4) of the 2006 Rules exempts the application of rule 3 in case power is exercised under section 164 of the Act and in this case power under section 164 is being exercised; (ii) The preamble to the 2006 Rules limits its application to section 67 of the Act, whereas the present action is covered by section 68 of the Act. 22. Rules 3(1) to 3(3) of the 2006 Rules do place some restrictions requiring permission of the DM under certain contingency. However, rule 3(4) of the 2006 Rules clarifies that this rule {rule 3(1) to 3(3)} does not effect the power conferred upon the licensee under section 164 of the Act. The necessity of obtaining permission is not applicable in case power is exercised under section 164 of the Act. 23. In the present case power is being exercised under section 164 of the Act and the permission of the DM is not necessary. 24. In view of above, it is not necessary to consider the second submission of the counsel for the Corporation. 3rd POINT: NOT ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 25. The tower is being erected over plot number 279. In the present case power is being exercised under section 164 of the Act and the permission of the DM is not necessary. 24. In view of above, it is not necessary to consider the second submission of the counsel for the Corporation. 3rd POINT: NOT ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 25. The tower is being erected over plot number 279. The contesting respondents have a factory in the adjacent plot, where they are manufacturing cemented sewer pipes. The plot No. 279 was purchased on 26.2.2011 for extension of their factory. 26. The project was sanctioned on 3.11.2009 much before plot No. 279 was purchased by the contesting respondents. The towers have to be erected from Bareily to Ghaziabad via Meerut. It cannot be done in a day; it takes time. The fact that now tower is being erected over the plot in dispute does not mean that no work was done. In fact, the towers at other places have been erected and stringing is being done. 27. The corporation has power to erect the towers and lay down the overhead electric lines. However, it is liable to pay compensation under the Telegraph Act. This will happen only after the construction is made and damages are assessed. 28. The Corporation does not deny its liability to pay compensation. And in case of dispute regarding amount of compensation, the contesting respondents can always file an appeal under section 16 of the Telegraph Act. In view of this, the contesting respondents do not have prima facie case. 29. The electricity is necessary for national development as well as for welfare of citizens. This can happen only if electricity generated at one part is transmitted to that part where it is needed. Transmission is not possible unless electric lines are laid down. Individual rights have to bow down in favour of public rights. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Corporation rather than the contesting respondent. 30. It is also incorrect to say that manufacturing activity will cease if overhead electrical liens are laid. The manufacturing process was going on for a decade without plot number 279 (it was purchased only in February, 2011) and it can always go on if tower is erected over part of it. 30. It is also incorrect to say that manufacturing activity will cease if overhead electrical liens are laid. The manufacturing process was going on for a decade without plot number 279 (it was purchased only in February, 2011) and it can always go on if tower is erected over part of it. There is no irreparable loss to the contesting respondents; on the contrary, if the tower is not erected and electrical lines are not laid then the loss is of the nation and the public at large in the NCR. 31. The contesting respondents neither have prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in their favour. There is no irreparable loss to them. They are not entitled to temporary injunction. 32. The counsel for the contesting respondent states that: The contesting respondents are carrying on manufacturing process. They pay lakhs of rupees in trade tax and excise duty to the Government; The land adjacent to the land, where the tower is to be constructed, belongs to the contesting respondents. It is available; The tower can easily be shifted to 20 to 30 mtr adjacent to the existing spot; The contesting respondents neither have any objection if the tower is constructed on their adjacent land nor in bearing the extra expenditure in shifting the tower. 33. It is not necessary for us to deliberate upon the offer made by the contesting respondents. It is for the parties to deliberate and consider the proposal. CONCLUSIONS 34. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) The Corporation is a transmission licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has been conferred power under section 164 of the Act and has power to erect the towers as well as lay the overhead electrical lines; (b) The Corporation is exercising power under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The prohibition contained in rule 3(1) to 3(3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 is not applicable. The permission of the DM or any other authority is not required. (c) The contesting respondents neither have a prima facie case, nor balance of convenience is in their favour. There is no irreparable loss to them. They are not entitled to temporary injunction. 35. In view of our conclusions, the appeal is allowed. The application for temporary injunction is rejected. (c) The contesting respondents neither have a prima facie case, nor balance of convenience is in their favour. There is no irreparable loss to them. They are not entitled to temporary injunction. 35. In view of our conclusions, the appeal is allowed. The application for temporary injunction is rejected. However, it is always open to the parties to sit together and consider the offer of the contesting respondents.