JUDGMENT : ” Heard on admission. 2. The appellants have preferred the present writ appeal against the order dated 18.9.2014 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.2496/2013, whereby no writ was issued by the writ Court and writ petition was dismissed. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent No.2 was erecting tower for electrical line over the lands of the appellants with help of a contractor (Licensee). The appellants have filed a writ petition that without their consent, such electrical line could not be erected. 4. Learned single Judge, after considering the submissions made by the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 18.9.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act and submitted that powers given under Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act shall be read with Section 16 of that Act and therefore, without consent of the appellants, no such electrical line can be erected. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed his reliance upon an order passed by the single Bench of Madras High Court in case of ' T. Narayanan v. Power Grid Corporation (India) Limited' , (AIR 2007 (NOC) 768 (Mad)). Learned counsel for the appellants has also invited the attention of this Court to Rule 3 (1) (a) of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter such rules shall be referred to as ' Rules 2006' ) framed under Sections 176 and 67 of Electricity Act, 2003 and submitted that before erecting any electrical supply line, prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land should be obtained. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed his reliance upon the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.269/2014 in case of ' Alkesh Tripathi v. The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and others' . Hence, the order passed by the writ Court is challenged. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have invited the attention of this Court to Rule 3 (4) of Rules 2006 to show that no such permission is required. Hence, the order passed by the writ Court is challenged. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have invited the attention of this Court to Rule 3 (4) of Rules 2006 to show that no such permission is required. It is submitted that the writ Court has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of ' Vijayram Chandra Agrawal v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.' , [(2010) (4) MPLJ 73]. 7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the factual and legal position of the case, it is true that provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are to be read simultaneously. However, according to the provision of Section 16 (1) of Indian Telegraph Act, it cannot be said that without getting the permission from District Magistrate, licensee who has to carry out work, should not start its work. Provision of Section 16 (1) of Indian Telegraph Act is reproduced as under: ' 16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.” (1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.' 8. It is prescribed that if owner of land or property resists or obstructs then, District Magistrate may grant permission and such owner or occupier of land or property should follow the order of the District Magistrate. In this Section, words ' resistance' and ' obstruction' are used. If the licensee is obstructed to enter in the premises to erect the electrical line or to erect towers for electrical line then, it is for him to seek permission from the District Magistrate. (At this stage, it is to be mentioned that the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has informed that 75% of total line work has already been completed). (At this stage, it is to be mentioned that the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has informed that 75% of total line work has already been completed). Similarly, the owner or occupier of the land or property obstructs then, it is for the licensee to seek permission of the District Magistrate but, it does not mean that if owner or occupier of the land or property objects then, it is necessary for the licensee to get such objections to be decided by the District Magistrate. If there is no obstruction or resistance from the side of the owner or occupier then, he could erect the electrical line or tower to erect electrical line. The order passed by the single Bench of Madras High Court did not consider the words obstruction and resistance while dealing with Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act and therefore, that order cannot be applied in the present case. 9. The present matter is duly covered with the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Vijayram Chandra Agrawal (supra) and the writ Court has also followed that judgment. It is clearly mentioned in Rule 3 (4) of Rules 2006 that various provisions were enacted for licensee shall not effect powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of Electricity Act. Hence, when a licensee starts erecting of towers and electrical line in public interest according to the plan given by the respondent No.2 then, it should not be interrupted by individual owner or occupier of the land or property. If any unnecessary delay would be caused in such construction then, certainly there will be a loss of public money, whereas plan of erection of such lines has been given by the respondent No.2 to the concerned licensee. 10. The Writ Court in light of judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vijayram Chandra Agrawal (supra), passed an order according to the law laid by Division Bench. Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the writ Court. Consequently, the present writ appeal cannot be accepted for final hearing. It is hereby dismissed at motion stage. Appeal dismissed.