JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioner, Mr. Siraj Gori for the respondent NO.2 and Mr. Kanva Antani, learned AGP for respondent No.1. The prayers in the petition, read as under: "8 (A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, permanently restraining the respondents from installing electric poles and laying high tension transmission lines from the land bearing Survey No. 291 of village Devpar, Taluka Nakhatrana and be further pleased to direct the respondents to remove the part construction of the electric poles already installed over the said agricultural land. (B) In the alternative, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to erect the electricity poles and high tension transmission lines from the nearby Kharaba land of the government and to follow the principles of "least damage" and to pay appropriate compensation before entering into and installing the high tension transmission line, if at all it is required." 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of land bearing survey no. 291 of village Devpar taluka Nakhatrana. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residing in West-Bengal and Maharashtra respectively, and therefore, the petition is filed through their power of attorney holder. 2.2 The case of the petitioners is that they are cultivating land by engaging agricultural labourers and the agricultural activity is ongoing. The case of the petitioners is that one K.P.Energy Pvt Ltd., which is in the business of erecting towers and supplying electricity power, has installed several wind mills at Village :Gadshisa and is transmitting electricity power from Gadshisa to village: Palanpura by laying down 58 k.m.s long high tension electricity lines. According to the petitioners, the said company has not taken any permission from the District Magistrate and also not obtained any consent from the owners of the respective agricultural fields. According to the petitioners, the company is threatening agriculturists to accept compensation at their discretion. 2.3 The case of the petitioners is that, when the respondent No.2 tried to forcibly enter the land of the petitioners and they were sought to be restrained, they were threatened and therefore, they made complaint to the Nakhatrana Police Station. According to the petitioners, the company is threatening agriculturists to accept compensation at their discretion. 2.3 The case of the petitioners is that, when the respondent No.2 tried to forcibly enter the land of the petitioners and they were sought to be restrained, they were threatened and therefore, they made complaint to the Nakhatrana Police Station. The petitioners have made representations to the District Collector that the lands of the petitioners cannot be entered upon without their consent. 2.4 A statement is also made in the petition that, earlier when one Suzlon Power Infrastructure Ltd., installed high tension transmission lines from revenue survey No.44, the company paid a compensation of Rs.70 lacs for 77.55 metres of land. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this court and the prayers therefore have been reproduced herein above. 3. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the respondent No.2 – K P Energy Ltd., has not obtained any permission under sections 67 & 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, r/w Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Inviting the attention of the court to the provisions of sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Mr. Shah, learned advocate, submitted that nothing on record is produced to show permissions obtained under the provisions of Telegraph Act also. Referring to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.2, and the communications annexed to the reply, Mr. Shah, learned advocate would contend that the communications dated 01.10.2019 annexed to the affidavit in reply would in no manner suggest that these are requisite permissions under sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act r/w section 164 thereof, and therefore, the act of the respondent No.2 in entering upon the land to install towers or tension lines is contrary to law. That no prior consent has been obtained from the owners of the lands in question. Inviting the attention of the Court to the communications annexed to the reply addressed by the Dy. Collector and the Sub Divisional Magistrate inviting the petitioners for a meeting on 24/03/2020 and 22/06/2020, Mr. Shah, learned advocate would submit that these are not proceedings to be recognised as permissions under section 16 of the Telegraph Act, and therefore, the act of the respondent No.2 is without any authority of law, and therefore, the same must be set aside. 3.1 Mr. Shah, learned advocate would submit that these are not proceedings to be recognised as permissions under section 16 of the Telegraph Act, and therefore, the act of the respondent No.2 is without any authority of law, and therefore, the same must be set aside. 3.1 Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, would also submit that details have been given in the rejoinder, wherein, it is categorically pointed out that for a land which was barren and for which the measure was 54 metres, the respondent company has paid compensation of Rs.85 lakhs, and therefore, that compensation paid to one Jadeja Bairajba for installation of high tension lines of Rs.85 lakhs shows that the offer to pay Rs.33 lacs for 153 metres of land of the petitioners is a complete eyewash. It is, therefore, in this context that the petition has been filed. 4. To the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Siraj Gori, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 to the maintainability of the petition, on the ground that the respondent No.2 is a private limited company, Mr Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has pressed into service decisions reported in Binny Ltd and another vs. B. Sadasivan and Others [ (2005) 6 SCC 657 ], Jatya Pal Singh vs. Union of India [ (2013) 6 SCC 452 ] and Ramesh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 12 SCC 331] to submit that the term authorities "under article 226 of the Constitution of India" must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 26 can be invoked against any person or authority which is performing a public duty. 5. Mr. Siraj Gori, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, K.P.Energy Ltd., has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Company. Mr.Gori's preliminary objection is that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners is misconceived because the respondent No.2 is a Company established under the Companies Act and it is not a government undertaking. Filing of a petition, therefore, against respondent No.2 amounts to misleading the Court. In support of his submission that the petition is not maintainable, Mr.Gori, has cited the following decisions: (1) K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and Ors., reported in 2015 (4) SCC 670 . Filing of a petition, therefore, against respondent No.2 amounts to misleading the Court. In support of his submission that the petition is not maintainable, Mr.Gori, has cited the following decisions: (1) K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and Ors., reported in 2015 (4) SCC 670 . (2) Rambhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors., vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1197 . (3) Jaagabhai Indubhai Saraiya v. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Botad & Ors., reported in 2020 (1) GLR 247 and (4) Ramkrishna Mission and another vs. Kago Kunya and others., reported in AIR 2019 SC 5570 . 5.1 By relying on these decisions, Mr. Gori, learned advocate's submission was that a public law remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked against respondent No.2 which was purely a private company, and therefore, as enunciated in the decisions cited above, wherein, the Courts have held that no writs would lie against a private company and / or a Co-operative Society or as in the case of the decision of Ram Krishna Mission (supra), the respondent NO.2 cannot be said to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the petition is, therefore, not maintainable. 6. On merits, Mr. Gori, learned advocate for the respondent, submitted that the contention of Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, that no permission under Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act have not been obtained is contrary to facts. He invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-I of the affidavit-in-reply, where, in detail a tabular form suggests that the approval under Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act and Section 164 of the Electricity Act has been obtained by the respondent No.2; that in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, meetings were held before the Collector, Deputy Collector and the District Magistrate, where the petitioners were called for hearing with regard to the satisfaction on the amount of compensation, but the petitioners did not remain present. He submitted that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appropriate remedy is that of approaching the District Court under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 6.1 Mr. He submitted that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appropriate remedy is that of approaching the District Court under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 6.1 Mr. Gori, learned advocate, would further submit that it is not the case of the Company that it is installing any electric poles in the land of the petitioners. In fact, the electricity transmission towers are installed over the government waste land after obtaining all permissions. The site of the petitioners, namely, revenue survey No. 291 is not being used for installation of towers or poles. He has shown photographs which suggest that the towers of the poles are being installed in an area bordering Survey No. 291 - the survey of the petitioners and it is outside the boundary. The new promulgation in the revenue records has been made. The Company has installed wind mills at village Gadsisha and is transmitting energy through transmission lines to Palanpura. According to Mr.Gori, learned advocate, the Company under Section 164 of the Electricity Act has obtained the necessary permissions and over head wires are to be laid for transmission of electricity which are to pass through revenue Survey No. 291. In order to settle the objections raised by the farmers, procedure under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, was followed, notices were issued on 18.03.2020 and 18.06.2020. The petitioners were invited for discussions. They, however, abstained from attending the same. 6.2 On the aspect of compensation, Mr. Gori, learned advocate for the respondent, has produced a Government Resolution dated 14.08.2017 and in accordance thereto, Mr. Gori, learned advocate, would submit that the petitioners would be entitled to compensation of Rs.38,556/-. However, the Company has offered to pay them a compensation of Rs.33 lakhs which is approximately 86 times more than the legitimate compensation. If, according to Mr. Gori, the petitioners are aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the remedy lies by invoking the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. 7. However, the Company has offered to pay them a compensation of Rs.33 lakhs which is approximately 86 times more than the legitimate compensation. If, according to Mr. Gori, the petitioners are aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the remedy lies by invoking the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. 7. Having considered the averments made in the petition, the affidavit-in-reply and the rejoinder filed by the petitioners and in context of the prayers made in the petition, reading the prayers in the petition it is culled out that essentially the prayer of the petitioners so drafted would indicate that they are seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent No.2 for restraining them from installing electric poles and laying high tension transmission lines on the land being Survey No.291 of village Devpar. 7.1 Pleadings in the petition have been made that such action of the respondent No.2 – Company is not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and / or the Telegraph Act or Rule 3 of the Works of Licencees Rules, 2006. Pleadings in the petition would also suggest that a comparison is made on the amount of compensation that some farmers have received from Suzlon Company and as in the rejoinder compensation paid to one Jadeja Bairajba by the respondent NO.2 Company of Rs.85 lakhs, whereas Rs.33 lakhs is offered to the petitioners. 8. Therefore, essentially though the petition is couched to suggest breach of provisions of law, mere bald assertions have been made and the dispute essentially underlying the ring of the submission of Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, would suggest that essentially the petitioners are aggrieved by the compensation. 9. Considering the decisions cited by Mr. Gori, in the case of K.K. Saksena (supra), Rambhai Ishwarbhai Patel (supra) and Jaagabhai Indubhai Saraiya (supra) and Ram Krishna Mission (supra), a petition essentially in the colour of seeking compensation and under such pretext showing non compliance of provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act seeking prayers only against the respondent No.2 would not be held to be maintainable. I would, therefore, have dismissed the petition accepting the submissions of Mr. Gori, on this ground alone. I would, therefore, have dismissed the petition accepting the submissions of Mr. Gori, on this ground alone. However, the facts that unfold on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the pleadings in the petition, the reply and the rejoinder, even on merits the petitioners have no case. The Court comes to this conclusion on the following grounds: (i) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2, K.P.Energy Pvt Ltd., has entered into the lands of the petitioners without authority of law and has not taken any permissions required under Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act and the approval so required under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. From the tabular form annexed hereto as annexure-I of the affidavit-in-reply, it becomes evident that the respondent No.2-Company had obtained approval under Section 68 of the Electricity Act on 18.01.2019. Newspaper notice was published on 06.02.2019, both in Hindi, Gujarati and English languages. The same was published in the Gazette of India on 16.03.2019. Approval under section 164 of the Electricity Act was obtained on 01.10.2019. The chronology would suggest that an application was made to the District Magistrate seeking consent on 12.03.2020 as they were intervened by the farmers from stopping of work. Letters were written to the farmers on 24.03.2020 for the purpose of settlement of the compensation dispute. On 19.03.2020, an application was made to the District Collector for seeking intervention. Such applications were again made on 13.05.2020 and 11.06.2020. The farmers were asked by the District Collector to remain present before the Dy. Collector on 22.06.2020 by a communication dated 18.06.2020. Annexed to the reply are the minutes of the meeting dated 22.06.2020. Perusal of the minutes of the meeting annexed to the reply would suggest that they were meetings in compliance of the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. (ii) Mr.Gori, learned advocate, in the reply has also drawn attention of the Court to the documents at Annexure-II collectively suggesting permissions under Section 164 of the Electricity Act r/w. Section 168. (ii) Mr.Gori, learned advocate, in the reply has also drawn attention of the Court to the documents at Annexure-II collectively suggesting permissions under Section 164 of the Electricity Act r/w. Section 168. To the objection of Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, that these are permissions in context of renew wind energy and nowhere suggests that it is in any way connected with the respondent No.2, K.P. Energy Ltd., perusal of Annexure-I, listing the dates on which requisite permissions were sought, the note below suggests that the approval is in the name of Renew Power who is the owner of the 300 Mega Watt wind power project and first circuit of the line is being laid down for the project, K P Energy is the owner of the second circuit as well as the developer of the project and therefore, the permissions are obtained in the name of the owner of the project and therefore the approvals though being in the name of Renew Energy are in fact for the projects that are being executed by the respondent No.2 Company. The contention of Mr. Shah, therefore, that these permissions do not exhibit the name of the respondent No.2 is misconceived. (iii) The contention of the petitioners is that the permissions under Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act have not been obtained and what is required to be seen is that it is not the Telegraph Act that applies but the permissions have to be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act. This submission of Mr.Shah, learned advocate, also deserves to be negated. For the sake of brevity the provisions of section 68 and section 164 of the Electricity Act and Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, are reproduced as under: “Section 68 Overhead Lines:- (1) An overhead line shall, with prior approval of the Appropriate Government, be installed or kept installed above ground in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2). The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply- (a) in relation to an electric line which has a nominal voltage not exceeding 11 kilovolts and is used or intended to be used for supplying to a single consumer; (b) in relation to so much of an electric line as is or will be within premises in the occupation or control of the person responsible for its installation; or (c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed. The appropriate Government shall, while granting approval under sub-section (1), impose such conditions (including conditions as to the ownership and operation of the line) as appear to it to be necessary. (4) The Appropriate Government may vary or revoke the approval at any time after the end of such period as may be stipulated in the approval granted by it. Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or where any structure or other object which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead line subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or authority specified by the Appropriate Government may, on the application of the licensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt with as he or it thinks fit. (6) When disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an Executive Magistrate or authority specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of any tree in existence before the placing of the overhead line, award to the person interested in the tree such compensation as he thinks reasonable, and such person may recover the same from the licensee. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the expression “tree” shall be deemed to include any shrub, hedge, jungle growth or other plant. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the expression “tree” shall be deemed to include any shrub, hedge, jungle growth or other plant. 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 co-ordination 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 condition and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 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. THE ELECTRICITY ACT SECTION 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 except 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; and 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; and (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 the referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reasons of the exercise of those powers. Section 16 Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes and compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority:- 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. If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person, the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction 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 it, the Telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount determined under sub-section (3), that amount, and the District Judge giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desired to be determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share. (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 to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation, Telegraph Authority, from the person who has received the same." 10. Reading of these provisions would suggest that the contention of Mr. Shah with regard to the applicability of Telegraph Act that there is no application of the Telegraph Act and permissions under Electricity Act have to be obtained is misconceived. Reading of these provisions would suggest that the contention of Mr. Shah with regard to the applicability of Telegraph Act that there is no application of the Telegraph Act and permissions under Electricity Act have to be obtained is misconceived. Reading Section 164 of the Electricity Act makes it clear that the appropriate Government may, by order in writing for placing of any electricity line or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity confer upon any licensee in the business of supplying electricity under this Act i.e. the Electricity Act, may think it fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act any of the powers which the Telegraph Authority possesses under that act with respect to the placing of the telegraph lines by virtue of section 164 thereof, the provisions of the Telegraph Act would be deemed to apply to the provisions of the Electricity Act and therefore to contend that permissions under the Telegraph Act have not been obtained is a misconceived contention of the petitioner. 11. On the aspect of working out of compensation, the averments in the petition and the rejoinder suggests that the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of compensation and the colour of the petition to plead or pray for a writ of mandamus on the ground of breach of provisions is only an under current to suggest more compensation. The petitioners have pleaded in the petition that Suzlon Company has paid 70 lakhs for a smaller parcel of land and that as suggested in the rejoinder 85 lakhs has been paid to one Jadeja Bairajba by the respondent No.2 whereas the petitioner is being offered only Rs.33 lakhs as compensation. 11.1 It is in this context that the provisions of section 16 have to be read which is reproduced above. Firstly, section 16(3) categorically states that even if a dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause(d), the parties have to approach the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. The mechanism is set out in sub-section (4) of section 16. It is, therefore, amply clear that a writ petition for enhancement of compensation would not be a remedy available to the petitioners when a mechanism is well available under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. 12. The mechanism is set out in sub-section (4) of section 16. It is, therefore, amply clear that a writ petition for enhancement of compensation would not be a remedy available to the petitioners when a mechanism is well available under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. 12. To the contention that no permissions have been obtained, it needs to be reiterated when we read sections 67 & 68 of the Electricity Act together with the provisions of the Telegraph Act, namely, Section 10 & section 6 of the Telegraph Act it suggests that the requisite permissions need to be obtained reading the two Acts together. To the bald assertions made by the petitioners in the petition, sufficient material has been placed in the affidavit-in-reply showing that requisite permission under section 68 of the Electricity Act read with section 164 and that of section 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act have been obtained by the respondent No.2. Meetings and the minutes thereof under section 16 of the Telegraph Act would show that the authorities attempted to assuage the farmers' grievance as to the compensation amount for obtaining consent for entering into their lands which was resisted. It was only after following the procedures as envisaged under the provisions of the Act that the respondents have sought to install transmission lines in accordance with law, and therefore, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the amount of compensation that is being paid, the remedy lies elsewhere as suggested in Section 16 of the Telegraph Act and the petition, therefore, is misconceived. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim relief granted on 18/06/2020 is vacated forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. After pronouncement of judgment through video conferencing, Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, requests to stay the present judgment. Request is rejected.