Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 569 (ORI)

KAILASH CH. MALLICK v. STATE OF ORISSA

2014-09-04

AMITAVA ROY, B.R.SARANGI

body2014
JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. - The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 12664 of 2013 and 2909 of 2012 have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to divert the route alignment of Meramunduli-Duburi 400 KV D.C. line to the route proposed by the Tahasildar Sukinda in his report, i.e., away from the village and the schedule land of the petitioners. In W.P.(C) No. 16594 of 2013 the petitioners have sought to quash the order dated 6.7.2013 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur in Electricity Misc. Case No. 04 of 2012 and to direct opposite parties 3 and 4 to divert the route alignment to the proposed route as per the report of the Tahasildar, vide Annexure-4. 2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The pleaded facts as available on record, are that erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as "OSEB", in short) prepared a transmission scheme from Rengali-Meramundali-Duburi 400 KV, DC line for 168 Km. in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 29 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The same was duly notified in the Extraordinary Orissa Gazette and published in Oriya newspaper "The Samaj", inviting representations/objections from the interested persons as the said line was being constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules framed thereunder. The proposed construction and erection of the said electric line was for public purposes and therefore, by filing the present interest litigations, the petitioners took steps to stop the construction and erection of the aid electric line, which was under construction for greater public purposes. The petitioners' claim is that since over-head line was being drawn over their own plots, they were being affected and as such, drawing of strings was made contrary to the approved scheme and hence, the writ petitions seeking interference by this Court. 4. Mr. MR. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the petitioners are not opposing the scheme of drawing high tension line as per the approved scheme, but by diversion of the route from the approved route under the scheme, their lands are going to be affected for which they have filed the writ petitions by way of public interest litigations. 5. Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the petitioners are not opposing the scheme of drawing high tension line as per the approved scheme, but by diversion of the route from the approved route under the scheme, their lands are going to be affected for which they have filed the writ petitions by way of public interest litigations. 5. Mr. J. Das, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16594 of 2013 also states that he does not challenge the drawing of high tension line as per the scheme, but he assails the diversion from the approved route for which the petitioner had approached the Collector, who on enquiry passed an order on 6.7.2013 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in Electricity Misc. Case No. 4 of 2012, from which it is revealed that the 400 KV electricity power line was intercepting the lease area of E.S.I. Corporation. In that regard, a joint enquiry was conducted on 16.11.2011 by the officials of OPTCL, P.G.C.I., E.S.I.C. and Tahasildar, Sukinda. After the joint enquiry, it was found that shifting of the tower line at least 15 mtrs away from the boundary line of E.S.I.C. would not affect the construction work of the hospital and would not create any future litigation as the proposed tower base would be shifted to a Govt. land. Since there is demand of hospital in the area of Kalinganagar Industrial Complex for the interest of the public, the tower line would be constructed with minimum inconvenience to the Hospital. It was further stated that since the tower line was a critical infrastructural project of the Govt. and setting up of hospital was also a priority project of the Govt. specifically in the industrial area, both parties had agreed to take up their project work on mutual consent without affecting the interest of each other. It was further directed that since this Court had passed status quo order on 29.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2909 of 2012, necessary steps would be taken after disposal of the same. 6. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Sr. Advocate for opposite parties 3 and 4 urged that since the Rengali-Meramundali-Duburi 400 KV, DC line for 168 Km. It was further directed that since this Court had passed status quo order on 29.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2909 of 2012, necessary steps would be taken after disposal of the same. 6. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Sr. Advocate for opposite parties 3 and 4 urged that since the Rengali-Meramundali-Duburi 400 KV, DC line for 168 Km. had been prepared in conformity with the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the same having been notified in the Orissa Extraordinary Gazette and published in oriya daily news paper "The Samaj" inviting representation/objection at their instance, the writ petitions at such belated stage cannot be maintained. In addition to the same, it is further alleged that the petitioners have not produced any document or proof that they belong to SC/ST persons; thereby the petition so filed in the nature of PIL is not in accordance with the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. That apart, the writ petitions are barred by Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2010, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Electricity Act, 2003. Since the petitioners have statutory remedies available under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 so also under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, this Court may not entertain these writ petitions. In addition to that, it is further urged that the petitioners having availed of the alternative remedy by approaching the District Magistrate and Collector, Jajpur, this Court may not entertain the writ petitions and the same may be dismissed. It is further urged that with regard to W.P.(C) No. 12872 of 2008 and W.A. No. 523 of 2011, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jajpur considered the grievance of the petitioners in those cases and passed the following orders: (i) The OPTCL is allowed for construction of tower on the suit land after payment of compensation, which is to be fixed by the Tahasildar, Sukinda. (ii) The compensation amount should be paid by the OPTCL; (iii) The local police officer is instructed to keep close watch at the time of construction of tower to avoid law and order situation. (iv) The Tahasildar, Sukinda is directed to fix compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and take necessary steps for payment to the petitioners. 7. Mr. (ii) The compensation amount should be paid by the OPTCL; (iii) The local police officer is instructed to keep close watch at the time of construction of tower to avoid law and order situation. (iv) The Tahasildar, Sukinda is directed to fix compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and take necessary steps for payment to the petitioners. 7. Mr. P. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation Ltd. while supporting the stand taken by opposite parties 3 and 4, submitted that excepting the 8 towers, the construction in respect of other towers of the transmission line has been completed and wires in respect of the towers have been drawn, but due to the interim order passed by this Court, no further work could progress and therefore, he seeks vacation of the interim order. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record and going through the provisions of law, it appears that erection of transmission and distribution of electricity lines was being regulated under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 empowers the OSEB to lay down or place electricity supply lines and other repair works, alter or remove the same and to do all other acts necessary for due supply of energy. The provisions of the said Section, inter alia, provide that such work to be done notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier of such building or land if the District Magistrate by order in writing so directs. Section 42 has empowered the OSEB for placing wires, poles etc. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, where provision has been made in a sanctioned scheme, the OSEB shall have all right to pale any wires, poles, etc. for transmission and distribution of electricity or for transmission of telegraphic or telephonic communication necessary for proper coordination to the work of the OSEB and exercise all the powers which the telegraph authority possess under Para-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to a telegraph establishment or maintaining by the Govt. or to be so established or maintained. 9. or to be so established or maintained. 9. Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers to Telegraph Authority to maintain a telegraph line under over, along or across and possession in or upon any immovable property provided, inter alia, that the authority shall do as little damage as possible and when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property it shall pay full compensation to all persons interested or any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers. Sections 67, 164 and 176 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are the corresponding provisions in respect of transmission and distribution lines. Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 saves the action already taken over the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Electricity (Supply) Act etc. Business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity was looked after by the OSEB. By virtue of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 and the Transfer of Schemes framed thereunder, the State Government in exercise of their power conferred by the provisions of the said act acquired all the assets, liabilities, proceeding and personnel and the business of the OSEB and subsequently transferred the business of transmission and distribution of electricity including the transmission line in question to the Grid Corporation of Orissa and generation of electricity to OHPC w.e.f. 01.04.1996 and consequent upon such transfer the GRIDCO took over the construction of the electric line. By virtue of the Orissa Electricity Reforms (Transfer of transmission related activities of GRIDCO) Scheme, 2005, the assets, liabilities, proceedings and personnel of GRIDCO relating to transmission of electricity have been transferred to and vested in M/s. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., in short, 'OPTCL' with effect from 01.04.2004 and consequent upon such transfer, at present the OPTCL is now looking after the construction of the transmission line in question. 10. The OPTCL is a Government of Orissa undertaking and is a State Transmission Utility under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the deemed transmission Licensee for transmission of electricity in the State of Orissa under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is the licensee for transmission of electricity granted by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is the licensee for transmission of electricity granted by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The OPTCL has bee duly authorized under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Government of Orissa in their orders dated 09.3.2006 notified in Extraordinary Gazette No. 406 dated 24.03.2006 to exercise all the power of Telegraph Authority as are available under Part-Ill 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. The opposite parties have been constructing the EHT Transmission Line, i.e. Rengali-Meramundali-Duburi 400 KV, DC line by observing all the formalities and maintaining the proper ground clearance and safety measures as stipulated in the Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The said Electricity line is very much vital for the purpose of public in order to provide reliable and steady power supply as well as to meet the power demand of Jajpur and other areas. 11. The erstwhile OSEB framed the Scheme and notified the same in the Orissa Gazette so also in the news paper for wide circulation amongst the general public and inviting representation from the general public and inviting representation from the general public within a period of two months. No representation from any villager/general public was received in response to the said notification. The OPTCL has succeeded the erstwhile OSEB in the manner stated above by the effect of law and as such, being the Licensee for the transmission of electricity from the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, it is competent to excuse the work as per transmission scheme prepared under Section 29 of the Act, 1948 by its predecessor, the OSEB. Such power of executing the work under the transmission scheme made under Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 has also been saved by Section 185(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The OPTCL has also been authorised by the Government of Orissa in Energy Department vide order dated 09.03.2006, which has been published in the Extraordinary Orissa Gazette dated 24.03.2006 under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to exercise all the powers as are vested on the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The OPTCL has also been authorised by the Government of Orissa in Energy Department vide order dated 09.03.2006, which has been published in the Extraordinary Orissa Gazette dated 24.03.2006 under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to exercise all the powers as are vested on the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In this regard, it is stated that even notwithstanding the powers so conferred by such notification dated 24.3.2006, the OPTCL being the successor to OSEB, automatically by operation of Section 185(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, is fully competent to execute the work as per the scheme. The affected person can only claim compensation under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and/or under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 if any damage is caused to the land on account of the construction of the electric line, but they do not have any right to restrain the Licensee from constructing the electric line, which is for public purpose. According to the opposite parties 3 and 4, the OPTCL is ready and willing to pay necessary compensation as would be fixed under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, if it is found that any land owner sustains any damage due to construction of line. 12. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur has disposed of Elect. Misc. Case Nos. 4 and 5 of 2012 considering all the facts so also the report by his order dated 6.7.2013 with a clear finding that there is no possibility of re-routing of the location No. 58/O to 60A/O at this stage as the line is in verge of completion. Further, from the said order of the Collector, it reveals that while passing such order, the Collector is well aware of the interim order passed by this Court. 13. The transmission work as per the Scheme is executed by the OPTCL for providing stable voltage and interrupted electricity supply to the general public and the various industrial units in the greater interest of the State. As per the details of the scheme, the aforesaid line has a 282 EHT towers to be set up and erected in the locations as per the drawing and design already prepared since long by the OSEB. As per the details of the scheme, the aforesaid line has a 282 EHT towers to be set up and erected in the locations as per the drawing and design already prepared since long by the OSEB. In the meanwhile, out of these, the foundation of 278 locations has been completed and 274 towers have been erected and stringing work has been completed. According to the opposite parties 95% of the work has already been completed with huge investment. Therefore, at this belated stage, after the notification was published in Official Gazette on 8.1.1996, the petitioners have raised the question of validity of such notification stating that no elaborate description of the plot Nos. are available over which the 400 KV line would be erected by the authority. But on perusal of the said notification, it appears that it has been notified in the official gazette vide Annexure-B/3, which has been published in oriya daily 'The Samaj' vide Annexure-2, where opportunity has been given to the petitioners that any person interested in making representation regarding execution of the above scheme may submit such representation regarding execution of the above scheme so as to reach the Secretary of the OSEB within two months from the date of notification. In the said notification it has also been stated that the full details of the scheme and the plan can be seen in the office of the Chief Engineer Transmission (Project), OSEB, Bhubaneswar on any working days during the office hours. However, pursuant to such notification, neither any representation within the period stipulated therein have been filed by any of the petitioners though the scheme and plan were very much available in the said office nor the same has been examined by the petitioners. 14. Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel while urging the validity of such notification, Mr. Panigrahi Sr. Counsel has referred to the judgment of the apex Court in Orissa Power Transmission Corporation v. Asian School of Business Management Trust (2013) 8 SCC 738 , in which the notification dated 30.5.1991 published in Official Gazette of similar nature with similar wording was under consideration by the apex Court. Considering the said notification, the apex Court referring to Sections 28 and 29 of the Act, passed the judgment. Paragraphs 21 to 24 of the said judgment are quoted below : "21. Considering the said notification, the apex Court referring to Sections 28 and 29 of the Act, passed the judgment. Paragraphs 21 to 24 of the said judgment are quoted below : "21. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that the Board or the generating company can prepare one or more schemes for efficient performance of its duties under the Act. Such schemes may elate to the establishment or acquisition of the generating stations, tie-lines, substations or transmission lines. By notification dated 28.12.1995 issued by the Government of India in the context of Section 29(1) of then Act, concurrence of the Central Electricity Authority was made mandatory for the schemes involving capital expenditure of hundred crores or more can be sanctioned by the Board or generating company except with the previous concurrence of the Central Electricity Authority. In terms of the Section 28(3), the scheme is required to be published in the Official Gazette and in the local newspapers. Section 29(2) requires that every scheme shall contain the estimates of the capital expenditure involved, salient features thereof and the benefits likely to a accrue therefrom. The scheme is required to be published giving the licensees and other interest persons an opportunity to make representation. Section 29(3) postulated consideration of representation by the Board or the generating company, as the case may be, before finalizing the scheme. In terms of Section 29(5), the competent authority can give appropriate direction in the matter of preparation of scheme or call upon the Board or the generating company to supply information incidental or supplementary to the scheme. 22. A reading of the notification dated 30.5.1991 makes it clear that the Board had notified almost 50 schemes and invited representations from interested persons. Some of the schemes were subsequently modified by Notification dated 30.1.1996. In both the notifications it was specifically mentioned that the full details of the schemes and the plans can be seen in the office of the Chief Engineer (Planning, Monitoring and Coordination)/ Chief Engineer (Transmission Project). The land owner(s) from whom the Trust purchased the land vide sale deed dated 30.10.2005 neither made any representation nor filed objection against the scheme. Indeed, it is not even the pleaded case of respondent No. 1 that anyone else had made representation or filed objection against any of the schemes. The land owner(s) from whom the Trust purchased the land vide sale deed dated 30.10.2005 neither made any representation nor filed objection against the scheme. Indeed, it is not even the pleaded case of respondent No. 1 that anyone else had made representation or filed objection against any of the schemes. Therefore, neither the Trust nor respondent No. 1, who constructed buildings knowing fully well that the Board had already framed scheme for the area in which its land was situated could object to erection of the remaining two towers or seek shifting of the scheme and the officers of Appellant 1 did not commit any illegality by refusing to entertain the request of Respondent 1 for shifting of the transmission towers by diverting 220 kV line from the existing alignment. 23. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court completely overlooked the fact that Respondent 1 had stepped into the shoes of a person who had no grievance against the scheme framed by the Board or execution thereof by Appellant 1 and proceeded to decide the matter as if execution of the scheme has commenced after construction of buildings by Respondent No. 1. This is the first fatal flaw in the approach adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court. 24. The exercise undertaken by the High Court for ascertaining the availability of alternative route through which the transmission line could be routed was totally unwarranted and half-walked consideration of the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellants has resulted in miscarriage of justice. As noted above, the scheme was notified on 30.5.1991 and was modified on 31.01.1996. During this period, Respondent 1 was not in picture/Admittedly, the Trust had purchased the land after more than 14 years and 6 months of initial publication of the scheme. Therefore, neither the Trust nor Respondent 1 had the locus to seek a mandamus for realignment of the route and the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by ordaining Appellant 1 to shift the transmission towers from their present site completely ignoring the fact that almost 150 towards had already been erected by Appellant 1 by spending more than rupees fourteen crores." Finally, the apex Court while setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 20659 of 2009, directed the respondent to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to OPTCL because of implementation of the scheme, which was frustrated due to unwarranted litigation by the Trust and the respondent No. 1. Applying the same analogy to the present case, since the scheme was published in Official Gazette in 1996 and the petitioners have approached this Court in 2013, i.e. after expiry of 17 years, that ipso facto indicates the callousness of the petitioners to approach this Court being aggrieved by any act of the authorities. 15. The entire endeavour of learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners throughout is that the petitioners are not opposing the approved scheme, but are only opposing diversion of the route, which goes over their plot in 'L' shape to which the opposite parties have candidly stated in their affidavit dated 16.8.2013 to the following effect: "x x x It is submitted that after publication of the scheme, there has been no change of route alignment as alleged by the petitioners. It is also incorrect to say that at the instance of some Minister and influential persons, OPTCL has changed the alignment to cause inconvenience to the petitioners is also incorrect and are hereby denied." The petitioners in reply to the affidavit of opposite parties 3 and 4 dated 16.8.2013, filed their affidavit on 26.8.2013. Paragraph 6 thereof, reads as follows: "That on a bare perusal of the aforesaid map vide Annexure-9, it will be seen that the 400 KV DC line of the original route which is still shown in the map at present, is passing through plot Nos. 679, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 649, 2964, 2963, 739, 743, 1048, 1049, 1056, 1052, 1047, 3190, 270, 1061 and 1458 of Nimapalli Mouza and Plot Nos. 499, 279, 280, 282, 494, 283, 284, 285, 286/288, 505, 290, 490, 292, 291, 293, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 479, 476, 474 and 473 of a Golagaon Mouza. Since the land of the influential person of the locality comes across the aforesaid route, i.e. plot Nos. 1061 and 1458, the same has been diverted to 'L' shape without any survey and without preparation of any map for the new route alignment towards and through the land of the petitioners and further without any publication of the changed route to avoid legal complications and to mislead the people of the locality." 16. 1061 and 1458, the same has been diverted to 'L' shape without any survey and without preparation of any map for the new route alignment towards and through the land of the petitioners and further without any publication of the changed route to avoid legal complications and to mislead the people of the locality." 16. The opposite parties in their reply, filed affidavit on 2.9.2013 denying the allegations, more particularly in paragraph 5 to the following effect : "5. That the facts stated in paragraph 6 are not admitted and hereby denied. The petitioners are put to strict proof 6f the allegations, which are vague and unspecific. It is submitted that the original scheme relating to village Nimapali and Golagaon available from the topographical map would show that the line from the beginning was in 'L' shape and it is not correct to say that since the lands of the influential person of the locality comes across Plot Nos. 1061 and 1058, the same has been diverted to 'L' shape. For reference photocopy of the extract of the relevant route alignment taken from the Topo map is filed herewith as Annexure-F/3. The deponent will produce the original map if so required by the Hon'ble Court for reference." Opposite parties 3 and 4 have referred to the approved map, which was filed as Annexure-F/3 and they have emphatically urged that in accordance with the approved scheme, the construction work is going on, but due to the status quo order passed by this Court, out of 282 EHT towers, 274 have been set up and erected as per the location and drawing and design already prepared since long by the OSEB and in the meanwhile out of these towers, foundation in respect of 278 locations have been completed and 274 towers have been erected and stringing work have already been completed, thereby 95% of the work have been completed and no further progress has been done due to the aforesaid interim order of this Court though the Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur has passed the order on consideration of the grievances made by the petitioners to work on approved scheme. In addition to this, referring to Annexure-G/3, it is stated that altogether 7 towers are to be erected over the plots coming under the villages of Nimapalli and Galgaon and those towers are numbered as 58A/O, 58A/1, 58A/2, 59/0, 59/1, 60/0, and 60A/O out of which the first six locations come under village Nimapali and the rest location, i.e. 60A/ 0 is covered by village Galagaon and the stringing is to be done after all towers are erected. In the said affidavit, it has also been mentioned that out of seven locations, foundation and stub setting has been completed in three locations, i.e. No. 58A/0, 60/0 and 60A/0 and in the rest four locations, no work has been done due to the interim order passed by this Court, to which reliance has been placed on Annexure-G/3, which indicates the plot number, khata number, area and names of the recorded land owners over whose plots the towers, are to be constructed and stringing of conductor is to be done. Pursuant to the direction of this Court on 5.9.2013, the Tahasildar, Sukinda and Danagadi were directed to provide necessary help to identify the plot numbers of the towers and spot verification and with the help of Revenue Inspector, Manitira and Revenue Inspector, Haripur, the plot numbers of the locations were verified and ascertained. According to the original route alignment, the topo map is available on record as Annexure-F/3 and accordingly, the work has to be progressed in accordance with the scheme. 17. Much reliance has been placed by the petitioners on Annexure-10, the map showing the deviations from the approved map to learned Sr. Counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4 has strongly refuted stating that there is no deviation from the approved scheme and that apart, such contention was considered by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur, who passed the impugned order and more particularly, when there was no deviation from the approved scheme itself. Because of the interim order, since the work has not progressed, it causes financial loss to the organization and the work is being delayed. Because of the interim order, since the work has not progressed, it causes financial loss to the organization and the work is being delayed. In the additional affidavit filed on 26.6.2014, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 while disputing the map produced by the petitioners in Annexure-10, urged that on the basis of route alignment map, the transmission line in question has bene drawn as per the topographical map showing the same vide Annexure-F/3, which does not refer to any village map and is not supposed to indicate exactly the plot nos. on and over which the 400 KV DC line is to be erected. 18. On the basis of the identification made by the Tahasildar, the names of the owners, including plot number, khata number, etc. of the disputed area over which the towers are to be located, was done and out of 282 towers only 7 locations over which the towers are to be erected were left out due to interim order of this Court, which has been filed as Annexure-G/3 to the affidavit dated 30.9.2013. 19. In the above backdrop of the matter, now we have to consider whether this Court can in exercise of it's powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, while entertaining a public interest litigation, withheld the project, which has got National importance. When the State is running with scarcity of power, in the mid-way if such project is stopped by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, causing colossal wastage of public money, what should be the remedy for that. 20. In Janata Das v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 , the apex Court has dealt with the meaning of Public Interest Litigation, to mean: "Public interest litigation, lexically the expression 'PIL' means a legal action intended in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." 21. Similarly in Fertilizer Corporation, Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568 , the apex Court in para 43 has held as follows: "Public Interest Litigation, is part of the process of participative justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps." 22. Similarly in Fertilizer Corporation, Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568 , the apex Court in para 43 has held as follows: "Public Interest Litigation, is part of the process of participative justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps." 22. The apex Court in Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan JT (2003) 7 SC 312, the apex Court has clarified the scope of public interest litigation and laid down certain principles, which are as follows : (1) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who are in a disadvantaged position and thus not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. (2) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court can treat a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (3) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India s well as the International conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. (4) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, deprived,' illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. (5) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about the variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (6) Although procedural laws apply on Public Interest Litigation cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depend on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. (6) Although procedural laws apply on Public Interest Litigation cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depend on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. (7) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (8) However, in appropriate cases, although the petitioner might have moved the Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of public. (9) The Court in special situation may appoint a commission, or other bodies for the purpose of Investigating into the allegations and finding out facts; it may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such committee. (10) The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the parties, it does not have a power alien to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. (11) Ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by - way of public interest litigation questioning constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule." 23. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal;, 2010 (I) OLR)Sc) 380 (2010) 3 SCC 402 , the apex Court has held as follows: "Public Interest Litigation, is not in the nature of adversarial litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice, which is the signature tune of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome public interest litigation because it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community and whether social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a teasing illusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be true, they can in discharge of their constitutional obligation root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the weaker sections their rights and entitlements. 24. In Public Interest Litigation, any member of public having sufficient interest has a right to maintain an action for judicial redress, for public injury, arising from breach of public duty or violation of some provisions of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of the public duty and observance of such constitutional and legal provision. Such litigation envisages: (1) a Court action by an individual or group of individuals belonging to a community or an indeterminate class, against a wrong, remotely or equally affecting the rights of the members of that community or class. (2) A Court action by a public-spirited citizen or a body devoted to the public cause to vindicate the rights of individuals, groups or even the public at large, against public wrongs, through the person or body undertaking the Court action who may not have suffered any injury. 25. In view of the aforestated proposition of law and applying the same to the present context, because of the public interest litigations a work of National importance has stalled causing colossal wastage of public money and the cost of the work being enhanced for that. Though the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons, by way of public interest litigations, the completion of the project has been stalled. 26. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the scheme of the project, which has been duly approved and published in Official Gazette by opposite parties 3 and 4 shall be implemented in conformity with the provisions of law and if anybody is aggrieved, he/she may approach the appropriate forum claiming compensation in accordance with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Though, this Court would have imposed cost on the petitioners, considering their economic status and position, refrains from doing that while recording a caveat that persons wishing to approach this Court by way of public interest litigation should not venture into their personal interest litigation, which will invite stern action for abuse of the process of law. 27. For the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petitions fails and the same are closed. Amitava Roy, C.J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed