JUDGMENT : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. The Petitioners - Mr. Murali Krishna and Mr. K.V. Venkataraya have filed these writ petitions before this Court on 19.07.2016 with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 05.02.2016 in No. CDS.MAG (2) CR 961/2013-14/C4 passed by the 1st Respondent, thereby allowing the petition filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 16 (1) of Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 164 of Indian Electricity Act, as per Annexure-A. (ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. By the impugned order Annexure-A dated 05.02.2016, the 1st Respondent - District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, has allowed the 2nd Respondent - Executive Engineer (Elec.), KPTCL, Kavoor, Mangalore, to go ahead with setting up of the power transmission line of the project known as 110 KV Madavu - Sullia electricity transmission line in Madavu of Puttur Taluk from proposed 110/33/11 KV Sub Station through 20 KMS in length line from Madavu Sub Station through Kolthige and Perlampady Villages till Sullia. 3. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sri. M.S. Harish and Others vs. Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Mangalore and Another in W.P. Nos. 28481-28483/2017 decided on 19.02.2018. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted below for ready reference:- "2. By the impugned order Annexure-A dated 04.04.2017, the Respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru has allowed the Respondent - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to go ahead with setting up of the power transmission line of the project known as 110 KV Madavu - Sullia electricity transmission line in Madavu of Puttur Taluk from proposed 110/33/11 KV Sub Station through 20 KMS in length line from Madavu Sub Station through Kolthige/Perlampady Village till Sullia. "3. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below for ready reference: "Prayer of petitioner is allowed. "3. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below for ready reference: "Prayer of petitioner is allowed. By exercising power conferred under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and by overruling the objections of the respondents, it is ordered that the petitioner namely Executive Engineer (Electricity) Brahut Kamagari Vibhaga, Kavoor, Mangalore is permitted to install 110 KV Sullia Electricity Sub Station and also permitted to draw 110 KV Electricity Transmission Line in Madavu of Puttur Taluk from proposed 110/33/11 KV Sub Station through 20 KMS in length line from Madavu Sub Station through Kolthige / Perlampady Village till Sullia as technically approved". 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended before the Court that the KPTCL had earlier conducted the survey in 2003 but without any reason they changed the course of the said transmission line in 2009 and the proposed new course is to pass through the land of the present Petitioners and the learned District Magistrate overruled the objections of the Petitioners and despite an injunction granted by the learned Trial Court in O.S. Nos. 228/2009, 212/2009 and 245/2009 in favour of the Petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has approved the said altered course of the transmission line. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited contended that the earlier survey of 2003 was not in existence and was not found to be technically feasible and that is why the learned Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 found that the course now approved on the basis of survey report of 2009, was the only technically approved course for the transmission line. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondent also explained that the injunction was granted by the learned Trial Court subject to the approval of the said proposal of the transmission line by the competent authority namely Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the same could not stand in the way of the respondent - KPTCL to draw the said power transmission line, now with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not deserve any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not deserve any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The technical aspects of the matter about the course or path of the Electricity Transmission Lines can only be determined by the Technical Experts. 8. In view of the various factors and the approval of the survey report conducted in this regard in the year 2009 and there being no earlier survey report of 2003 duly approved, as contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and as recorded in the impugned order in paragraph 10(d) of the same, the present petitions are found to be devoid of merit. 9. Paragraph 10(d) of the impugned order reads as under: "(d) The survey conducted by KPTCL during the year 2003 is not in existence. But the survey conducted during the year 2009 is technically approved and is approved in the Karnataka Gazette and is in existence." 10. These factual aspects of the matter as to which course or path of power transmission line should be adopted by the KPTCL cannot be adjudicated upon by the Courts, who lack the technical knowledge and experience and unless the arbitrariness in the action of the public body or authority is well established, no such interference in the administrative decisions like this can be made by the Courts. The Petitioners' right to be compensated in accordance with law, of course is there, but the course or path of power transmission line, cannot be determined by the Courts at all. Therefore, neither the Civil Court nor this Court has the technical expertise to decide such questions. 11. Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty and direction to the Petitioners to claim compensation in accordance with law in case such power transmission line pass through their lands and they become entitled to such compensation in accordance with law. No costs." 4. In view of the same, the present writ petitions are also disposed of in the same terms. No costs.