JUDGMENT : 1. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise), Southern Region Transmission System-II RHQ, Singanayakanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore 560 064, is suo-motu impleaded as the seventh respondent in this Criminal Original Petition. 2. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by various owners of agricultural lands situated at Erode District. 3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, impleaded as the seventh respondent, is in the process of implementing the project from Raigarh to Pugalur, covering five States, extending to 1843 Kilo Meters. The project started at Chhattisgarh and it has already covered four States. Now the project is sought to be implemented in Tamilnadu covering seven Districts to an extent of 345 Kilo Meters. 4. The seventh respondent started the process of surveying the lands at Erode District. There was a resistance/objection on the part of the owners/occupiers of the property. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the seventh respondent Officials in spite of the objections made by the land owners/occupiers, are forcibly entering into the property of the petitioners with the help of Police Officials. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that under the Provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the moment there is resistance, the seventh respondent has to get the permission of the District Collector before proceeding further with the project. 6. The learned counsel for this purpose relied upon the judgments of this Court in R. Santhana Raj Vs. The Chief Engineer, Non-Conventional Energy Source reported in 2012 (1) CTC 504 , Dr. B. Shivkumar Vs. Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited., reported in 2016 (1) CTC 669 and also the judgment made in W.P.(MD) No.15040 of 2018, dated 17.09.2018. 7. By relying upon the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the seventh respondent cannot straight away resort to the help of the Police and they have to necessarily workout their rights only under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and in accordance with the guidelines given by this Court in the judgments referred supra. 8. Mr. R. Thigarajan, the learned Senior counsel representing the seventh respondent would submit that the seventh respondent is undertaking this major project starting from Chhattisgarh and the project has already been completed in four States and the project is at its last phase in Tamilnadu. 8. Mr. R. Thigarajan, the learned Senior counsel representing the seventh respondent would submit that the seventh respondent is undertaking this major project starting from Chhattisgarh and the project has already been completed in four States and the project is at its last phase in Tamilnadu. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the project will cover totally seven districts in Tamilnadu to the extent of 345 Kilo Metres. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the Officials belonging to the seventh respondent have only started making survey of the lands and at that point of time, there is resistance and therefore the Officials had sought for the help of the Police in order to avoid any law and order problem. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the seventh respondent will not proceed further with the project, if there is resistance from the land owners/occupiers, without complying with the procedure as contemplated under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the petitioners have approached this Court even at the inception of the project in order to stall further course of action. 9. In reply to the submission made by the learned Senior counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even as per the relief that has been sought for in the present petition, the petitioners have made it clear that the police cannot intervene in this issue unless the seventh respondent has obtained necessary permission under the Provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, or the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Therefore, it is not the intention of the petitioners to stall the project and the petitioners being poor farmers are only depending on the available farm lands for their livelihood. 10. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either side. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the seventh respondent has made a categorical statement before this Court that the seventh respondent will not proceed further, where there is resistance from the land owners/occupiers, without following the procedure under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In view of the specific stand taken by the learned Senior counsel, the apprehension that has been raised by the petitioners has been answered. 11. In view of the specific stand taken by the learned Senior counsel, the apprehension that has been raised by the petitioners has been answered. 11. It is made clear that the police shall not interfere in this issue unless the seventh respondent has followed the procedure in accordance with law in order to proceed further with the project. This Court also records the submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the seventh respondent in this regard. 12. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above observations.