JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. - In this writ petition, the petitioner, an Educational Trust has sought directions against the opposite party No.1-Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. to suitably change the course/route of their scheme of construction of 132 KV connected transmission line from the LOC No.67/132 KV. S/C line Budhipada-TarkeraCKT.1 to 132/33 KV sub-station, Kalugaon so that it would not pass over the land of the petitioner given in the schedule. The petitioner assails that the action of the opposite parties is unauthorized and illegal as they have forcibly constructed electrical towers and threatened action of drawing High Tension 132 KV electrical line over the petitioner’s land without following provisions contained in the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. 2.The petitioner claims that it has purchased the land described in the schedule of property in the writ petition measuring an area of Ac.4.62 decimals from the original owners. Then, it has applied before the Tahasildar, Panposh-Kuamunda for allowing the lands to be recorded as Gharabari for the purpose of construction of building for Engineering and Management College after getting due permission from the competent authority. When the construction was going on, the workers accompanied contractor came over the land and without taking permission of the petitioner started digging in the middle of the petitioner’s land. The petitioner objected to their unauthorized action. The contractor replied that he acted as the A.G.M., OPTCL, Jharsuguda directed him for construction of a tower over the said land, which would facilitate drawing of higher tension of 132 KV electrical transmission line over the land. The petitioner submitted that it has no prior knowledge of about the same and has not been given a notice about the fact nor consent taken from him. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that it came to know from the office of the opposite party No.3 that the course/route of the transmission line has been prepared in a zigzag manner in order to escalate cost of the project and to protect the land of influential persons from being affected by the project. The petitioner submits that if the opposite parties have taken care to draw the line in straight way, the petitioner as well as the private persons would not be affected by such construction of high tension transmission line. The patch of the land of the petitioner is shown in the map appended to the writ petition. The petitioner submits that if the opposite parties have taken care to draw the line in straight way, the petitioner as well as the private persons would not be affected by such construction of high tension transmission line. The patch of the land of the petitioner is shown in the map appended to the writ petition. 3.On further enquiry, the petitioner came to know that opposite party No.2 has given advertisement in Odiya daily “Khabara” in its 02.08.2011 edition, wherein it has been notified that the works of installation of new 132/32 Grid under R.I. Circle, Kalugaon is intended to be undertaken and the persons, who are interested in making representation regarding the execution of the aforesaid work may submit such representation in writing to the opposite party No.2 within two months from the date of publication of the notification. In the said advertisement, it was also given that full details of the scheme and plan of the work may be seen in the office of concerned Assistant General Manager (Electrical) on any working hour during office hour. The petitioner claims that the OPTC Ltd. has published the Notification in a newspaper, which is not widely circulated daily in Rourkela and as such it is difficult on the part the petitioner and or any of the persons affected with the aforesaid work to know about the advertisement. The petitioner submitted that in exercise of the power conferred under Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 176 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Central Government had formulated Rules with regard to the works of the licensee which is the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006. Rule 3(1)(a) of the said Rules provides that a licensee may carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover, or where under any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land. It is therefore contended that consent of the owner of the land is required for construction or drawal of the over head high tension of 132 KV transmission line over the land of the land owner, in the instant case, the petitioner. It is therefore contended that consent of the owner of the land is required for construction or drawal of the over head high tension of 132 KV transmission line over the land of the land owner, in the instant case, the petitioner. The notice given under Annexure-3 at no stretch of imagination qualifies to be called a prior consent of the petitioner/land owner for the same. Such action of the opposite parties in preparation to construct the tower and drawl of high tension transmission line over the petitioner’s land is illegal and arbitrary and the works/scheme, more specifically the course/route of transmission line in its present form so as to affect the lands of the petitioner, is liable to be quashed. The petitioner therefore states that the action of the opposite parties in trying to construct the tower and draw a high tension electric line of 132 KV over the petitioner’s lands is in complete violation of the mandates provided under the Works of License Rules, 2006 and infringes over the rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties be directed to restrain from such illegal activity otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury inasmuch as the life and careers of young students would be affected by such action. 4.Opposite party No.3 has filed a detailed counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the proposed construction and erection of the electric line is for public purpose and the petitioner does not have right, seek his right to stop construction and erection of the electric line and that the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the District Magistrate under Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and or under the provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 for compensation if there is any damage to the land. 5.It is stated that the OPTCL is the Government of Orissa undertaking in the State Transmission Utility under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is the deemed transmission licensee for the transmission of electricity in the State of Orissa under the provisions of Electricity Act. It is the licensee for transmission of the electricity granted by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. It is the licensee for transmission of the electricity granted by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. The OPTCL has been duly authorised under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Government of Orissa and from order dated 09.03.2006 notified in extra-ordinary Gazette No.406 dated 24.03.2006 to exercise all powers of the Telegraph Authority as already available under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to undertake construction of transmission line including to place any electric line, towers etc. on and over the land or building as the case may be in the State of Orissa. It is further stated that the said transmission scheme for installation of new 132/33 KV Grid Sub-Station at Kulinga in Sundergarh district with construction of 2.942 Kms. of 132 KV double circuit transmission line for LILO arrangement (from Loc No.67) of existing 132 KV Budhipadar to Tarkera line (Circult-1) at proposed 132/33 KV Grid Sub-Station, Kalunga was published in the Orissa Gazette on 29.07.2011 and was published in two Oriya daily newspapers such as “Dharitri” and “The Khabar” on 02.08.2011 for wide circulation among general public and inviting representation from the general public within a period of two months from the date of publication. The name of the village line had been indicated in the scheme with instruction that full detail of the scheme and plan are available to be seen and verified in the office of the Asst. General Manager (Electrical), EHT (Construction) Division, Jharsuguda. No representation from the villagers or from the petitioner was received in response to such notification. 6.The opposite party further claims that in the meantime they have already completed foundation work at all tower locations of the scheme by investing huge public money and the construction of tower and stringing of wire is in progress. The petitioner did not raise any objection at the time of foundation work or at any point of time whatsoever. It is further submitted that only 800 sq. feet land to the extreme corner of the plot No.285 is utilized for the tower location No.AB-2 and the entire land is barren land and no construction has been made in the said land and the land is recorded in the name of Sohan Singh son of Hazare Singh and he has not raised any objection on the construction of the scheme at any point of time. The opposite party further claims that it is a Government Company and transmission utility/licensee within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has been empowered and authorized under the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as notified by the Government of Orissa in their Order dated 09.03.2008 to exercise all the power of the Telegraph Authority as are available under Part-III of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to undertake construction of transmission line including to place any electric line, towers, etc. on and over the land or building as the case may be in the State of Orissa. The said Transmission scheme was prepared after due and proper survey by the competent experts including the Government Authorities by taking care of all aspects including the proper ground clearance and safety measures. It is further stated that as per the approved land schedules and route map obtained from Tahasildar, Lathikata, the line is being drawn. There is no scope either technically or physically to divert the line as suggested by the petitioner. The opposite party further claimed that the project of drawing of high tension line, which has been challenged by the present petitioner is drawn as per the provisions of Section 176 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and therefore, there is no illegality in the installation of electricity towers over the land of the petitioner and therefore, there is hardly any scope to interfere on it. 7.Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the reported case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Singh and others, AIR 2011 Patna 83, contends that prior consent of the owner is necessary and installation of transmission tower without prior consent is bad in law. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid judgment has been assailed in appeal before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted therein. 8.Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, relies upon several cases of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid judgment has been assailed in appeal before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted therein. 8.Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, relies upon several cases of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and other High Courts. In the case of Sri Santosh Kumar Jena v. Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India, Eastern Region, Transmission, System-II, Balasore, T.L. Office, 110(2010) CLT 465, this Court has stated that the electricity company has right to use land to draw line under the Indian Telegraph Act and the petitioner is only entitled to compensation and no injunction can be granted to stop the work. 9.Similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Gupta and others, AIR 2012 Allahabad 62, wherein the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that as in that case power has been exercised under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, permission of the Divisional Manager is therefore not necessary. 10.In G.V.S. Rama Krishna s/o. Nageswar Rao and others v. A.P. Transco represented by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha and others, AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 158; the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the A.P. Transco to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation if any damage is sustained by him by reason of placing of such electric supply lines. In other words, neither the acquisition of the lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the owner or occupier. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rabindra Bhoi v. Chief Executive Officer, Central Electricity Supply Utility and another, 2010 (Supp-I) OLR 804 and in Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust and others v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2008 Jharkhand 34. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rabindra Bhoi v. Chief Executive Officer, Central Electricity Supply Utility and another, 2010 (Supp-I) OLR 804 and in Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust and others v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2008 Jharkhand 34. Now it is the duty of the Court to examine the provisions of the Act and to find out whether prior consent of the owner/occupier is necessary for drawing of the line and if there is necessity for getting the sanction order of the District Magistrate and Collector. In this regard, the provisions of Sections 67 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are extracted hereunder. Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is quoted below : “67. Provision as to opening up of streets, railways, etc.–(1) A licensee may, from time to time but subject always to the terms and conditions of his licence, within his area of supply or transmission or when permitted by the terms of his licence to lay down or place electric supply lines without the area of supply, without that area carry out works such as – (a)to open and break up the soil and pavement of any street, railway or tramway; (b)to open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or under any street, railway of tramway; (c)to alter the position of any line or works or pipes, other than a main sewer pipe; (d)to lay down and place electric lines, electric plant and other works ; (e)to repair, alter or remove the same; (f)to do all other acts necessary for transmission or supply of electricity. (2) The Appropriate Government may, by rules made by it in this behalf, specify,- (a)the cases and circumstances in which the consent in writing of the appropriate Government, local authority owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall be required for carrying out works; (b)the authority which may grant permission in the circumstances where the owner or occupier objects to the carrying out of works; (c)the nature and period of notice to be given by the licensee before carrying out works; (d)the procedure and manner of consideration of objections and suggestions received in accordance with the notice referred to in clause (c); (e)the determination and payment of compensation or rent to the persons affected by works under this Section; (f)the repairs and works to be carried out when emergency exists; (g)the right of the owner or occupier to carry out certain works under this Section and the payment of expenses therefor; (h)the procedure for carrying out other works near sewers, pipes or other electric lines or works; (i)the procedure for alteration of the position of pipes, electric lines, electric plant, telegraph lines, sewer lines, tunnels, drains, etc.: (j)the procedure for fencing, guarding, lighting and other safety measures relating to works on streets, railways, tramways sewers, drains or tunnels and immediate reinstatement thereof; (k)the avoidance of public nuisance, environmental damage and unnecessary damage to the public and private property buy such works; (l)the procedure for undertaking works which are not reparable by the Appropriate Government, licensee or local authority; (m)the manner of deposit of amount required for restoration of any railways, tramways, waterways, etc. (n)the manner of restoration of property affected by such works and maintenance thereof; (o)the procedure for deposit of compensation payable by the licensee and furnishing of security; and (p)push other matters as are incidental or consequential to the construction and maintenance of works under this Section. (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this Section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience cause by him or by any one employed by him. (4) Where any difference or dispute [including amount or compensation under Sub-section (3)] arises under this Section, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. (4) Where any difference or dispute [including amount or compensation under Sub-section (3)] arises under this Section, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. (5) The Appropriate Commission, while determining any difference or dispute arising under this Section in addition to any compensation under Sub-section (3), may impose a penalty not exceeding the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section. This clause provides that a licensee, subject to the terms and conditions of his licence, may carry out works inter alia as to open and break up the soil, street, railway, sewer, drain or tunnel and do all other acts necessary for transmission or supply of electricity. It further empowers the Appropriate Government to prescribe by rules, inter alia, the authority for granting of permission where the owner or the occupier objects to the carrying ut of the works; the procedure and manner of consideration of objection and suggestions etc. This clause also provides that licensee shall in exercise of any of the powers conferred under this cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience and shall make full compensation for any damage detriment and inconvenience. Where any dispute arises under this Section the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission.” Section 164 of the Act provides for exercise of powers of the Telegraph Authority in certain cases. It reads as follows : “164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.- The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose 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 electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 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. This clause provides for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephone or telegraphic communications and confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying of electricity under the proposed legislation, any of the powers of the Telegraph Authority. (Notes on Clauses).” 11.As could be seen, though Section 67(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is identical to Section 12(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 varies from Section 12(2) of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Section 67(2) does not say that the consent of the owner or occupier is mandatory but the matters where the property of other persons is affected by the works of the licensee have been left to be provided by the appropriate Government by way of Rules in exercise of its rule making power. 12.In the meantime, the Central Government has, in exercise of power conferred under Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 176 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 of the Electricity Act, made the Rule titled as “The Works of Licensees Rules, 2006”. Rule 3 is relevant for the purpose of this case. “3. Licensee to carry out works.- (1) A licensee may - (a)carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawuflly laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land; (b)fix any support of overhead line or any stay or struck required for the purpose of securing in position any support of any over head line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support: Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or struck has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorized may be order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or struck to be removed or altered. (2) When making an order under sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorized, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. (3) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorized officer under Sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Appropriate Commission. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act.” In this case, Sub-rule (4) is applicable as admittedly, the power is being exercised by the licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. It can be seen from the Annexure-A that as per the Government of Orissa, Department of Energy Order dated 09.03.2006, the present opposite party has been conferred with license to exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in respect of the electrical lines and electrical plant established or maintained or to be so established or maintained for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for the proper co-ordination of the works. In exercise of such powers conferred under Section 164 on the Corporation, they prepared the land schedule, which is under Annexure-B, showing the line over which electricity lines will be passed delineated specifically powers where the task has been established. Accordingly, a Notification has been issued in two local daily and that has been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexures C and D. 13.In this case, the Corporation has notified the route through which the electricity line is to be drawn and objections were invited from the persons concerned. The said Notification came in different daily newspapers. No objection has been raised by the petitioner or anybody else. Hence, as the power is exercised under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the provisions of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 will not be applicable and it is not mandatory for the Transmission Company to seek permission of the occupier-land holder prior to fixing such towers on the land. Hence, as the power is exercised under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the provisions of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 will not be applicable and it is not mandatory for the Transmission Company to seek permission of the occupier-land holder prior to fixing such towers on the land. However, the petitioner is entitled to compensation under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 14.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite party-company to carry out the work as per the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and compensate the petitioner adequately for the land it has lost in the process. Petitions disposed of.