ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the erection of electricity tower of 400 KV Line from Bhadla to Bikaner in the petitioners' factory premises. 2. The petitioners have stated in the petition that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are running a factory of manufacturing bio-fuel situated in Chak 481.500 RD of Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner. It is further averred in the petition that the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited accorded sanction for right of way for erection/construction of 400 KV D/C Bhadla-Bikaner Transmission Line vide notification dated 04.07.2013 issued by Energy Department, Government of Rajasthan under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act of 2003') as well as powers available being the Telegraphic Authority as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act of 1885'). As per the said notification, the said electricity line is to be erected through the various villages enlisted in the notification dated 04.07.2013. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners' land being part of Chak 481.500 RD is not mentioned in the notification dated 04.07.2013, however, the respondents are erecting pillar in their factory premises without any authority. In the writ petition, it is also claimed that while erecting a 400 KV Line, the respondents have unauthorisedly erected the pillar in the factory premises of the petitioners in violation of the provisions of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules of 2006') framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 176 read with sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Act of 2003. 3. It is also contended in the writ petition that the respondents are not following the Construction Manual for Transmission, 2007 while erecting the pillar in the factory premises of the petitioners for the purpose of 400 KV Line. The petitioners have therefore, prayed that the respondents be restrained from erecting the pillar for 400 KV Line from Bhadla to Bikaner in their factory premises; the construction as is going on for erecting the said pillar be stopped and whatever the construction carried out till date be removed. The petitioners have therefore, prayed that the respondents be restrained from erecting the pillar for 400 KV Line from Bhadla to Bikaner in their factory premises; the construction as is going on for erecting the said pillar be stopped and whatever the construction carried out till date be removed. The petitioners have also prayed for damages caused to their building and also prayed for damages for litigation, harassment and mental agony suffered by the petitioners. In the writ petition, the petitioners have also provided details regarding earlier writ petition filed by them before this Court and SLP filed by them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition are raised while claiming that the writ petition filed by the petitioners raising similar grounds has already been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the petitioners are estopped from filing second writ petition in relation to the same controversy on the basis of principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners are having an alternate remedy of approaching the District Magistrate by way of filing an appeal as provided under section 17 of the Act of 1885. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as a matter of fact in the earlier writ petition, the validity of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006 was under challenge and the Division Bench of this Court had no occasion to consider and decide the contention of the petitioners regarding the violation of the provisions of Rules of 2006 and the provisions of Construction Manual for Transmission Lines, 2007. It is contended that since the Division Bench did not adjudicate the issues in respect of violation of the provisions of Rule 2006 and the Construction Manual for Transmission Lines, 2007 and only dealt with the question of the validity of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006, the said decision of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 1258/2016 will not operate as res judicata. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that under section 164 of the Act of 2003, it cannot be said that electricity authorities are empowered to erect transmission line or erect pillars in private lands without obtaining consent from the owner. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that under section 164 of the Act of 2003, it cannot be said that electricity authorities are empowered to erect transmission line or erect pillars in private lands without obtaining consent from the owner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the decision of Division Bench of Patna High Court rendered in Power Grid Corpn. of India v. Ram Naresh Singh & Others, AIR 2011 Patna 83 and the decision of Madras High Court in Evangelical Church of India v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [Writ Petition No. 9426/2005] and other writ petitions decided on 29.08.2007 has argued that the Division Bench of Patna High Court has held that before putting up electric line by the electricity company on any land, prior consent of the owner of that is necessary. It is further argued that the Patna High Court after taking into consideration Section 10 (a) of the Act of 1885 has held that electricity authorities can erect electricity lines only for the purpose of telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government or to be so established or maintained. It is contended that while dealing with the similar issue, the Patna High Court after taking into consideration section 164 of the Act of 2003 and Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006 has held that installation of transmission power without the consent of the owner of the land is bad in the law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Madras High Court in Evangelical Church of India v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) has also held that the erection of the electricity line in the private land without the consent of the owner of that land is bad in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Others, 1970 (3) SCC 851 and argued that the contention of the respondents regarding the availability of alternate remedy by way of approaching the District Magistrate under section 17 of the Act of 1885 has no merit because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Others, 1970 (3) SCC 851 and argued that the contention of the respondents regarding the availability of alternate remedy by way of approaching the District Magistrate under section 17 of the Act of 1885 has no merit because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Others (supra) has clearly held that the notification issued by the appropriate Government conferred powers for placing of electric supply-lines appliances and apparatus for the transmission and distribution of energy by it within the area of its supply which the telegraph authority possesses and such powers would not mean that all the rights and liabilities of the licensee under the Electricity Act are governed by the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act. 10. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition be granted. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that as a matter of fact all the grounds raised in this writ petition had already been raised by the petitioners in the earlier writ petition and the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition are also similar to the reliefs prayed in the earlier writ petition. Hence, the petitioners are estopped from raising same grounds and for praying same reliefs in this writ petition on the basis of principle of res judicata/ constructive res judicata. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 1990 SC 1607 . Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 1990 SC 1607 . It is also argued that the Division Bench of this Court in Madan Dan Arha & Another v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Others [Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 586/2014] decided on 21.04.2014 has clearly held that appropriate Government is authorised to 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 it may think fit to impose as well as to the provisions of the Act of 1885, any of the powers which the telegraphic 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. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 19.05.2016 rendered in Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2704/2016] and argued that the Division Bench has held that in respect of any grievance regarding erection of electricity line, a person can approach to the District Magistrate under section 17 of the Act of 1885. 13. On the strength of above, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petition being barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata and on account of availability of alternate remedy is liable to be dismissed. 14. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that being aggrieved with the erection of the electricity tower in the petitioners' factory, initially the petitioners approached the civil court at Bikaner by preferring civil suit, however, the said civil suit came to be rejected being barred as per section 145 of the Act of 2003 and an appeal against the judgment of the civil court also came to be rejected by the appellate court on 01.03.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 1258/2016 before this Court while claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006 be declared illegal and set aside. (ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be restrained from erecting a transmission line through/ across the premises of the petitioners; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or directio, the respondents may be directed to seek an alternative route for erecting the transmission line; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to acquire the entire land of the petitioner and compensate the damages made to the property of the petitioners; (v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the premisese of the petitioners in future. 15. In the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1258/2016 the petitioners also took the ground that the respondent authorities are not following the procedure laid down under the Rules of 2006 and are acting in violation of Construction Manual for Transmission Line, 2007 and the land of petitioners is not covered under the notification dated 04.07.2013. The writ petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2016, whereby the validity of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006 has been upheld. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners preferred SLP No. 24235/2016, however, the same also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2016, which is reproduced hereunder: “Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application filed in the matter is also disposed of. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we however direct that the concerned Authorities shall take all necessary steps in terms of the relevant Rules applicable in undertaking the works involved.” 16. It is well settled that the principle of res judicata also applies to the writ proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we however direct that the concerned Authorities shall take all necessary steps in terms of the relevant Rules applicable in undertaking the works involved.” 16. It is well settled that the principle of res judicata also applies to the writ proceedings. Reliance can be placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Har Swarup v. The General Manager, Central Railway & Others, AIR 1975 SC 202 ; G.K. Dudani & Others v. S.D. Sharma & Others, AIR 1986 SC 1455 and Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1998 SC 2046 . 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (supra) has held as under: “35. Writ Petition No. 1327 of 1982 was argued by J.H. Bhatia, the petitioner, in person. He was directly recruited as Deputy Engineer Class II in July, 1959 and has challenged the constitutional validity of the 1978 Rules. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the respondents, took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground that his claim stands barred by principles of res judicata. Admittedly, he was represented in W.P. No. 672 of 1981, filed before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed on 7-9-1981, upholding 1978 Rules. An application under Article 136 of the Constitution being numbered as S.L.P. No. 8064 of 1981 was filed from this judgment in representative capacity and was dismissed by this Court on 29-12-1981. These facts were not denied by the petitioner before us, and it was therefore contended on behalf of the respondents that so far the validity of the 1978 Rules is concerned, it must be held to be binding on the petitioner in respect of identical relief now pressed by him in the present writ case. The objection appears to be well founded. It is well established that the principles of res judicata are applicable to writ petitions. The relief prayed for on behalf of the petitioner in the present case is the same as he would have, in the event of his success, obtained in the earlier writ petition before the High Court. The objection appears to be well founded. It is well established that the principles of res judicata are applicable to writ petitions. The relief prayed for on behalf of the petitioner in the present case is the same as he would have, in the event of his success, obtained in the earlier writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner in reply contended since the special leave petition before this Court was dismissed in limine without giving any reason, the order cannot be relied upon for a plea of res judicata. The answer is that it is not the order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition which is being relied upon; the plea of res judicata has been pressed on the basis of the High Court's judgment which became final after the dismissal of the special leave petition. In similar situation a Constitution Bench of this Court in Daryao v. State of U.P. (1962) 1 SCR 574 : AIR 1961 SC 1457 , held that where the High Court dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution after hearing the matter on the merits, a subsequent petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief filed by the same parties will be barred by the general principle of res judicata. The binding character of judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction is in essence a part of the rule of law on which the administration of justice, so much emphasised by the Constitution, is found and a judgment of the High Court under Article 226 passed after a hearing on the merits must bind the parties till set aside in appeal as provided by the Constitution and cannot be permitted to be circumvented by a petition under Article 32. An attempted change in the form of the petition or the grounds cannot be allowed to defeat the plea as was observed at page 595 (of SCR) : (at p.1467 of AIR) of the reported judgment, thus: "We are satisfied that a change in the form of attack against the impugned statute would make no difference to the true legal position that the writ petition in the High Court and the present writ petition are directed against the same statute and the grounds raised by the petitioner in that behalf are subsequently the same." The decision in Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri, (1986) 1 SCC 100 : AIR 1986 SC 391 , further clarified the position by holding that an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to of essentially connected with subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.” 18. Relying on the aforesaid decision, later on a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Another v. All India Manufacturers Organisation & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 683 has held as under: “32. Res judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: one being the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause) and second, public policy that there ought to be an end to the same litigation . It is well settled that Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") is not the foundation of the principle of res judicata, but merely statutory recognition thereof and hence, the section is not to be considered exhaustive of the general principle of law. The main purpose of the doctrine is that once a matter has been determined in a former proceeding, it should not be open to parties to reagitate the matter again and again. Section 11 CPC recognises this principle and forbids a court from trying any suit or issue, which is res judicata, recognising both “cause of action estoppel” and “issue estoppel.” 33..... 34..... 35..... 36. We will presently consider whether the issues and findings in Somashekar Reddy (supra) actually constitute res judicata for the present litigation. Section 11 CPC undoubtedly provides that only those matters that were "directly and substantially in issue" in the previous proceeding will constitute res judicata in the subsequent proceeding. 34..... 35..... 36. We will presently consider whether the issues and findings in Somashekar Reddy (supra) actually constitute res judicata for the present litigation. Section 11 CPC undoubtedly provides that only those matters that were "directly and substantially in issue" in the previous proceeding will constitute res judicata in the subsequent proceeding. Explanation III to Section 11 provides that for an issue to be res judicata it should have been raised by one party and expressly denied by the other: "Explanation III. The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other." 37. Further, Explanation IV to Section 11, states: "Explanation IV.-- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit." 38. The spirit behind Explanation IV is brought out in the pithy words of Wigram, V.C. in Henderson v. Henderson as follows: "The plea of res judicata applies, except in special case (sic), not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time." 39. In Greenhalgh v. Mallard (hereinafter "Greenhalgh"), Somervell L.J. observed thus: "I think that on the authorities to which I will refer it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the Court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them." 40. The judgment in Greenhalgh was approvingly referred to by this Court in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain. Combining all these principles, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit, Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra expounded on the principle laid down in Forward Construction Co. The judgment in Greenhalgh was approvingly referred to by this Court in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain. Combining all these principles, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit, Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra expounded on the principle laid down in Forward Construction Co. by holding that: "An adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had (sic) decided as incidental to or essentially connected with (sic) subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata." 19. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if we go through the present writ petition, it would appear that the grounds urged and the reliefs prayed in this writ petition are almost similar to that of Civil Writ Petition No. 1258/2016. The decision passed in the said writ petition has attained finality as the SLP against the said decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the respondents to take all steps in terms of the relevant Rules applicable in undertaking the works involved, however, the said direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court will certainly not give any right to the petitioners to approach this Court by way of second writ petition urging the similar grounds and praying for similar reliefs, which have been declined by this Court by dismissing the earlier writ petition. 20. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance on decisions of Division Bench of Patna High Court in Power Grid Corpn. 20. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance on decisions of Division Bench of Patna High Court in Power Grid Corpn. of India v. Ram Naresh Singh & Others (supra) and the decision of Madras High Court in Evangelical Church of India v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) to the effect that before installation of transmission tower the respondents are required to seek consent of the petitioner is concerned, it is appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Madan Dan Arha & Another v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Others (supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the said decision has observed as under: “We have analysed the pleadings available on record and the arguments advanced. Noticeably, it is the categorical stand of the respondents that the impugned action is endorsed by Section 164 of the Act. For ready reference, this provision is extracted herein below:- “164. The Division Bench of this Court in the said decision has observed as under: “We have analysed the pleadings available on record and the arguments advanced. Noticeably, it is the categorical stand of the respondents that the impugned action is endorsed by Section 164 of the Act. For ready reference, this provision is extracted herein below:- “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 coordination 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 t he Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraphic 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.” A plain reading of the above text would reveal that the appropriate Government is authorised thereby to confer upon any public officer or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, as it may think fit to impose as well as to the provisions of the 1885 Act, any of the powers which the telegraph authority is possessed thereunder (1885 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. The notifications No. RVPN/CE/T&C/PTCC/F. (ROW)/D.580 and 581 dated 5.3.2014 issued by the Chief Engineer (T&C), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur indicate in clear terms that the same had been issued pursuant to the notification dated 28.2.2004 of the Energy Department of the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 8.3.2004, under section 164 of the Act as well as by virtue of the powers of the telegraph authority under the 1885 Act available to the Chief Engineer of the Nigam, to erect electric lines/electric plants for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper coordination of works. Thereby, sanction has been accorded of the right of way for erection/construction/ modification of 132 KV S/C Pindwara-Aburoad line for raising height of railway track crossing Swaroopgang and Banas at km 567/1-2 Ch.90260 (line length approx.0.802 km) and 132 KV S/C Pindwara-J.K.Laxmi Cement line for raising height of railway track crossing Aburoad-Pindwara at km 559/6-7 Ch.97760 (line length approx.0.695 km) for supply of electricity. The boundary/revenue area within which the transmission lines would pass has been mentioned as well. Apart from the presumption of validity of an official act unless convincingly rebutted, according to us, the text of the notifications per se is overwhelmingly demonstrable of the conferment envisaged under section 164 of the Act vesting the respondent-Nigam with the powers of telegraph authority possessed under 1885 Act with regard to placement of telegraph lines and posts for the purpose of a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained. The plea of want of competence thus in the attendant facts and circumstances and in the face of the notifications and absence of unimpeachable material to the contrary does not weigh with us. Sections 10 and 16 of the 1885 Act being of substantial significance are also quoted hereunder:- 10. The plea of want of competence thus in the attendant facts and circumstances and in the face of the notifications and absence of unimpeachable material to the contrary does not weigh with us. Sections 10 and 16 of the 1885 Act being of substantial significance are also quoted hereunder:- 10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.-The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property: Provided that:- (a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained; (b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.” 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. (2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. (4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it. (5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same.” It would be apparent from Section 10(d) that in exercise of the powers conferred thereby the telegraph authority is to ensure that the damage is minimum and full compensation is paid for any damage sustained by reason of the exercise of such powers except in cases where the property is vested in or under the control or management of any local authority. Sections 16(3) and 16(4) provide for contingencies involving disputes with regard to sufficiency of compensation and entitlement of the claimants respectively. The forum of jurisdictional District Judge has been envisaged by the legislature to deal with such situations and to decide the controversy. Sections 16(3) and 16(4) provide for contingencies involving disputes with regard to sufficiency of compensation and entitlement of the claimants respectively. The forum of jurisdictional District Judge has been envisaged by the legislature to deal with such situations and to decide the controversy. In terms of Section 16(5), every determination of dispute made by the District Judge under sub-section (3) or (4) would be final. In view of such unambiguous and presiding provisions contained in Sections 10 and 16 of the 1885 Act, we are of the comprehension that the learned Single Judge did not err in dismissing the appellants-writ-petitioners' apprehension to the contrary. In absence of any enjoinment in any of these enactments, we are also not weebit convinced that acquisition of any immovable property being subject matter of any project as involved herein, is a condition precedent for the validity thereof.” 21. In view of authoritative pronoucement in the above referred judgment of Division Bench of this Court, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the electricity authority can erect electricity lines only for the purpose of telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government or to be so established maintained is not accepted 22. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding availability of alternate remedy to the petitioners to approach the District Magistrate under section 17 of the Act of 1885 is merit acceptance as the petitioners are essentially aggrieved with the erection of the pillar and transmission line in their property and are seeking alternative in the electricity line can very well approach the District Magistrate under section 17 of the Act of 1885. Section 17 of the Act of 1885 reads as under: “17. Section 17 of the Act of 1885 reads as under: “17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on property other than that of a local authority.- (1) When, under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or post has been placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in form, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly: Provided that, if compensation has been paid under section 10, clause (d), he shall, when making the requisition, tender to the telegraph authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum. (2) If the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situated to order the removal or alteration. (3) A District Magistrate receiving an application under sub-section (2) may, in his discretion reject the same or make an order, absolutely or subject to conditions, for the removal of the telegraph line or post to any other part of the property or to higher or lower level or for the alteration of its form; and the order so made shall be final.” 23. The Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) has also held that any person aggrieved with the erection of laying and installation of high tension lines can approach the District Magistrate under section 17 of the Act of 1885. 24. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Others, (supra) is concerned, the same is regarding a dispute between the electricity company and local authorities i.e. Patna Municipal Corporation in respect of some demand raised by Patna Municipal Corporation from the electricity company. 24. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Others, (supra) is concerned, the same is regarding a dispute between the electricity company and local authorities i.e. Patna Municipal Corporation in respect of some demand raised by Patna Municipal Corporation from the electricity company. The facts of that case are quite distinguishable and hence, do not have application in the present controversy. 25. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the District Magistrate under section 17 of the Act of 1885.