ORDER : T. RAJANI, J. This petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in erecting the high power transition towers and laying lines in the petitioners lands covered by Survey Nos.124-1, 128-2, 1101, 128-3, 124-2, 36-2 and 12-3 of Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal. 2. The petitioners aggrieved by the laying of lines by the 8th respondent over their lands come before this court seeking a direction to restrain the 8th respondent from laying lines. The understanding of the petitioners, as could be understood from the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel, is that the 8th respondent is granted permission to lay the electrical lines in the agricultural lands of the petitioners. 3. The 8th respondent in its counter clarified that it is a fully integrated textile company, majority of the employment in the company/s provide for rural women. They have unit 2 at Remalle village. They proposed their composite mega textile project, which is adjacent to the said unit in a phased manner and applied for additional load to their unit from the sub station under construction at Ranganagudem. APTRANSCO has sanctioned the same and agreed to convert their existing 33 KV potential to 132 KV potential and based on their sanction letter, they started their Composite Mega Textile Project (Unit 3) with a total investment of 275.85 cores in a phased manner. Phase I was scheduled to commence commercial production in the month of April, 2015 while phase II of their composite Mega Textile Project (Unit 3) was expected to be ready in January, 2016 Since two phases would be commencing commercial operations in January, 2016. Since two phases would be commencing operations on different dates and since the progress of 132KV Rangannagudem SS is not matching with their schedule for trail production, they have requested APSPDCL for a separate service of 5000 KVA to be supplied in a phased manner. They received machinery for Unit 3 (Phase I) and erection of the same has begun. APSPDCL has sanctioned 5000KVA and released power in a phased manner. They are in need of an additional CMD of 2500KVA to the existing CMD of 10500 KVA, as the 2nd phase of their unit 3 will be ready for trail production by November/December, 2015 and to put this expansion into production. APSPDCL has sanctioned 5000KVA and released power in a phased manner. They are in need of an additional CMD of 2500KVA to the existing CMD of 10500 KVA, as the 2nd phase of their unit 3 will be ready for trail production by November/December, 2015 and to put this expansion into production. In anticipation of completion of 132 KV Rangannagudem SS, they have requested ED (Planning, RAC & Reforms) APTRANSCO to enhance the already approved CMD and the same was sanctioned. They have submitted their request to the SE (O) APSPDCL-Vijayawada requesting for an additional CMD of 2500 KVA. They have supplied to APTRANSCO for erection of DC/SC line from 132/33 KV to their unit. They submitted representation to the Chief Engineer construction APTRANSCO who have additional HT Supply. The same was accepted and they paid requisite amount of money. The 8th respondent was permitted to carry out the above works on turn key basis by APTRANSCO authorized contractor M/s.Annapurna Constructions & Transmission Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad . There is a provision for compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The writ petitioners without approaching the concerned authority, filed this petition, which deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri M.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned standing counsel; Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel; and Sri Y.V.Ravi Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents. 5. Petitioners’ counsel expresses no grievance if it had been the Government, which had taken up the work of laying lines over its fields. His grievance is that if it is 8th respondent, who is permitted to lay lines, his right of appeal provided under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act would be lost. In answer to the said contention, the counsel for the 8th respondent submits that the writ petition is filed under misconception that it is 8th respondent, who is executing the works, but, in fact, it is APTRANSCO which is executing the work through registered contractor i.e., M/s.Annapurna Constructions and Transmission Pvt. Ltd. 6. The counsel for the petitioners relies on Section 164 of the Electricity Act to contend that the Government conferred power for placing of electrical lines on a person, who is permitted under Section 164 to be conferred with such power. Section 164 can be extracted for ready reference, which reads as follows: “Section 164. The counsel for the petitioners relies on Section 164 of the Electricity Act to contend that the Government conferred power for placing of electrical lines on a person, who is permitted under Section 164 to be conferred with such power. Section 164 can be extracted for ready reference, which reads as follows: “Section 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 the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers which the telegraph 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.” 7. It can be seen that conferring powers under Section 164 can be on a licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act. There is no dispute that APTRANSCO is a licensee and from the record it can be understood that M/s.Annapurna Constructions and Transmission Pvt. Ltd., is a registered contractor of APTRANSCO and the work is being carried on by M/s.Annapurna Constructions and Transmission Pvt. Ltd. It cannot be said that the licensee himself has to carry on the work, as the mode of execution of work by APTRANSCO would be to get it executed through registered contractors, who are experts in the concerned field. Hence, no merit is found in the contentions of the petitioners’ counsel. 8. In view of the above, this court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition by clarifying that the right of appeal under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, would not be lost by the petitioners since there is no violation of the procedure and any dispute with regard to the compensation can be raised in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.