JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.06.2013 and 05.07.2013 (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively), whereby objections filed by the petitioners with regard to laying down of 220 KV High Tension Electrical Transmission Line through their land, have been dismissed. 2. Vide notification dated 08.07.2009 (Annexure P-1), objections were invited with regard to installation of 220 KV line from sub-station Sarna to Railway Station within one month. Thereafter, the Corporation had issued revised notification dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure P-3) with an alternative route from Sarna to Sujanpur Railway Station and objections were invited within a period of two months. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the notification dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure P-3), they gave their objections for change in the route of the High Tension Electrical wire, as it was passing through the land of the petitioners. 4. On notice, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, stating that almost 50% of the work has now been completed and shifting of the route is not possible nor feasible. It has been further stated that the petitioners had not chosen to file any objections with regard to the notification dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure R-3/4). It is when the second notification for change of the route was issued on 30.05.2013, the objections were filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on 01.06.2013 (Annexure P-4). The respondent-corporation has replied to the said objections vide letter dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure P-5) while stating that the land of the petitioners fall in the zone of notification dated 30.09.2009. In the revised notification, the land of the petitioners is not covered in the reply (Annexure P-5). The petitioners were informed that 50% of the work had been completed after following the proper procedure. The route plan of length i.e. 9.963 KMs for laying the transmission line is prepared keeping in view all the technical aspects. The sanctioned route of this line in the land of the petitioners cannot be changed as per norms. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Change of Land Use (CLU), which was granted by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 29.09.2009 (Annexure P-10) for setting up a Hotel Management & Catering Technology Institute. 6. The sanctioned route of this line in the land of the petitioners cannot be changed as per norms. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Change of Land Use (CLU), which was granted by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 29.09.2009 (Annexure P-10) for setting up a Hotel Management & Catering Technology Institute. 6. Keeping in view the fact that this permission had been granted after the fist notification dated 08.07.2009 (Annexure P-1), vide order dated 21.01.2014 passed by this Court, a direction was given to the Director (Projects) of the Power Grid Corporation of India to constitute a Committee within a period of 15 days, which would conduct a spot inspection and after hearing both the parties submit its report before this Court with regard to change of route given by the petitioners. 7. In compliance with the aforesaid order, a report has been received in a sealed cover, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners were present along with the members of the Committee at the time of spot inspection and the final conclusion in the report is that, if the route is changed through the land falling in the forest area, the length of transmission line will increase by 7 kilometers. The Committee has further opined as under:- i. Length of transmission line will increase by around 7 Kms, thus total length of the line will become around 17 Kms, besides passing through forest and land of other villagers. ii. This will not only increase the cost of line by Rs. 9-10 crores and allow wastage of approximately Rs. 2-3 crores tax payer money. iii. There is involvement of huge dense forest along approximately 2.5 Kms of Dense forest and shall require cutting of around 8-10 thousands big/small trees, which will be very much adverse for environment. 8. It has been further opined that the route selected/adopted by PSTCL is the most techno-economic route and carried out in accordance with the norms. If the route is to be diverted or changed, the benefit of the society will be deferred for years and possibility of Court cases to be filed by the land owners cannot be ruled out. Extra expenditure of Rs. 9-10 crores shall be incurred for the said purpose. The report of the Committee is taken on record as Mark - A. 9. Extra expenditure of Rs. 9-10 crores shall be incurred for the said purpose. The report of the Committee is taken on record as Mark - A. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s Cee Enn Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. v. Punjab State Transmission Corporation Ltd. and others, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 404 had dismissed a petition, wherein similar prayer was made with regard to change of route for installation of 220 KV Line. In the aforesaid case, it was observed as under :- "Although counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon the Court that the alternative suggested by the appellant is the most suitable one but we are not inclined to venture into such an exercise especially in the light of the report which had been called by us from the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, who has vast experience in construction of transmission lines including routing and spotting thereof and it is a neutral party to the case in hand. The report, as has been stated above, does not approve the alternative suggested by the appellant and, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere in the appeal. Otherwise also, the work carried out by the respondent- Corporation being a public utility is in the larger interest of the public which should give way to private interest especially in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If there is a conflict between the private interest and the public interest, public interest has to prevail and to be given precedence over the private interest and individual hardships and difficulties are liable to be overlooked." After going through the detailed report, given by the aforesaid Committee, no ground is made out to interfere in the work, which is being carried out by the respondents in laying down the transmission line. 10. Dismissed.