JUDGMENT B.P. Routray, J. - The Petitioners, who are the villagers of Kumudapali and Dalki Bandhtekra in the district of Jharsuguda, are assailing the action of the Opposite Parties with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to stop power supply of 33 KV electric line through the agricultural lands of their village and further to prohibit Opposite Party No.5 in this regard. 2. It is stated by the Petitioners that the lands over which the electric line is proposed to run have neither been acquired nor any intimation has been given to the villagers for the purpose. It is their further case that installation of such electric line over the private lands of the villagers is violative of OERC Code and the same will endanger their lives and livelihood. They are in possession of the cultivable lands since the time of their forefathers and using the same for agricultural purpose. Concerning such forcible action of the Opposite Parties more particularly, Opposite Party No.5 though a FIR has been lodged before the Jharsuguda Police Station on 3rd October, 2010 and another representation was made to the Collector, Jharsuguda, still neither the Police nor the Collector did take any action. The Petitioners further asserts that they came to know from reliable source that, the proposed 33 KV electric line is specially meant for Vedanta Company and the public would be no way benefited out of it. There is an alternative way to take said 33 KV electric line through the village roads instead of taking the same straight way through the agricultural lands. It is also stated that the proposed construction of the electric line is violative of the provisions of Electricity Act and Rules. 3. Out of several Opposite Parties in the array, Opposite Party No.5- Vedanta Aluminium Limited and Opposite Party No.8-M/s. Sterlite Energy Limited are the main contesting Opposite Parties. 4. Opposite Party No.3-State of Orissa in Energy Department in their counter have stated that, there is a 400 KV electric line of M/s. Sterlite Energy Limited instead of 33 KV electric line, connecting to 400 KV Power Grid Corporation of India Limited has been constructed which is dedicated to evacuate power from its generating station to Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Grid. This being an interstate power generating station, prior permission of Ministry of Power, Government of India under Section 68 of the Electricity Act has been obtained vide Letter dated 1st September, 2010. The Chief Electrical Inspector to Government of India have also inspected the installation of LILO (Line-in-Line-Out) of 400 KV Rourkela-Raigarh transmission line vide Letter No.3, dated 8th February, 2011. 5. M/S. Sterlite Energy Ltd., who is Opposite Party No.8 and now known as Vedanta Limited (who was also arrayed as Opposite Party No.5) have filed their counter reply dated 2nd December, 2019. It is required to be stated here that though initially Opposite Party No.5 (Vedanta Aluminium Limited) has filed its counter on 13th March, 2011 by denying that, no construction of transmission lines was made by it, but it was by M/s. Sterlite Energy Limited, subsequently perhaps after acquisition of Sterlite Energy Limited which is now known as Vedanta Limited has filed a separate counter as aforestated on 2nd December, 2019. In the counter affidavit dated 2nd December, 2019, it is stated by Opposite Party No.5 that, it is a generating company within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in order to set up the Thermal Power Plant of 2400 MW, it received all statutory approvals from time to time. It has received prior approval from Government of India, Ministry of Power under Section 68 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for construction of dedicated transmission line on 1st September, 2010 with permission for evacuation of power from 4x600 MW TPP (generating station) to the National Grid under Long Term Open Access. It has constructed the transmission line after obtaining prior consent of the owner or occupier of the private lands involved as required under Work Licence Rules, 2006 and compensation has also been paid to the concerned land owners where towers have been constructed. Such interstate transmission line is passing at a height of more than 20 meters overhead with due verification and approval by the concerned electricity authority of the Central Government and such construction will never affect the lives or the agricultural lands. The said construction having been completed since September, 2010 is in operation since November, 2011 and till date no complaint relating to danger of life or to property due to lay of electricity transmission lines has been received. The said construction having been completed since September, 2010 is in operation since November, 2011 and till date no complaint relating to danger of life or to property due to lay of electricity transmission lines has been received. It has also stated that the provisions under the Electricity Act and Rules recognizes and approves such construction of transmission lines over the 3rd party lands. The present writ petition in the nature of PIL cannot be maintained in absence of any individual complaints or allegations received from the affected persons, if any. On the other hand Opposite Party-Company has been generating electricity and supplying to GRIDCO which is in public interest. So far the allegations of violation of Sections 10, 11, 16 and 53 of Electricity Act, the same are completely baseless and incorrect. 6. Upon hearing the respective counsels for the parties and on perusal of record, it reveals that the Petitioners do not file their rejoinder to the counter affidavits filed by the Opposite Parties more particularly, Opposite Party Nos.5, 8 and 3. This means that the Petitioners have been unable to controvert such stand of the Opposite Parties in their respective counter affidavits. 7. This Court by order dated 1st February, 2011 has passed the interim order to the effect that, Opposite Party No.5 is directed not to draw 33 KV electricity line over the agricultural lands of the Petitioners, and the said interim order continued from time to time. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in course of hearing mainly rely on a decision of this Court dated 28th March, 2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.572 of 2011, wherein the relevant observation is as follows: "********** If the definitions of "transmission lines" and "dedicated transmission lines" read with reference to Sections 9, 10, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of the Act, it clearly gives the indication that generating company cannot have its own dedicated transmission lines and it cannot install the electric towers for the purpose of drawing and supply the power generated by it to the respondent Nos.6 & 7. Therefore, prior approval under Section 68 of the Act for the purpose of drawing overhead lines under the guise of "dedicated transmission lines" is totally impermissible under the law and permission granted by the Central Government is not with reference to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, prior approval under Section 68 of the Act for the purpose of drawing overhead lines under the guise of "dedicated transmission lines" is totally impermissible under the law and permission granted by the Central Government is not with reference to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the prior approval granted in favour of respondent No.5 is required to be quashed. Further, under the guise of the same, for drawing the overhead lines over the property of the appellant by applying the Rules, 2006 have no application to the fact situation. Therefore, the appeal must succeed. **********" 9. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 by placing copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12842 of 2012, dated 9th May, 2012 submits that, the operation of the impugned judgment in the said Writ Appeal No.572 of 2011 has been stayed until further order and the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal has been preferred by M/s. Sterlite Energy Limited before the Supreme Court. Additionally it is submitted that prior to the date of passing of the interim order by this Court, the construction of electric lines was already completed and power supply has been made functional and till date the same remains functional. 10. Admittedly the Petitioners do not dispute the completion of construction of the electric line and functional of power supply through the same. The Petitioners have not disputed the specific stand of Opposite Party Nos.5 and 8 in this regard. This implies to show that the status of completion of construction and power supply through the same is admitted and remains uncontroverted. Therefore, the writ petition as on date has become infructuous factually. 11. Moreover the submission of the Petitioners that construction of such electric line over the agricultural lands is endangering their lives and livelihood is not found supported with material particulars. The Petitioners have not said how their lives or livelihood became endangered by constructions of the electric lines. 12. So far regarding violation of provisions of Electricity Act and Rules are alleged by the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Petitioners was unable to substantiate his contention. The Petitioners contend that the action is violative of Sections 10, 11, 16 and 53 of the Electricity Act. However, this appears to be incorrect. 12. So far regarding violation of provisions of Electricity Act and Rules are alleged by the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Petitioners was unable to substantiate his contention. The Petitioners contend that the action is violative of Sections 10, 11, 16 and 53 of the Electricity Act. However, this appears to be incorrect. The relevant provisions are Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Sections 67, 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 envisages that when electric poles or lines are being erected over a land of private person having his right and title therein, the right and title is not shifted to the appropriate Government, rather the right of user remains their and to that effect the affected party is entitled for compensation. Here in the present case, the specific stand of Opposite Party No.5 that each and every person affected have received their compensation is not at all disputed by the Petitioners. In the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited, (2017) 5 SCC 143 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court on a similar issue after examining different provisions under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 have observed: "17.Sections 68 and 69 of the Electricity Act, 2003 fall in Part VIII with the caption 'WORKS'. These two provisions directly deal with the overhead lines. As per Section 68, an overhead line can be installed or kept installed above ground "with prior approval of the Appropriate Government". "Appropriate Government" is defined under Section 2(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it is not in dispute that in the instant case, it would be the Central Government as it is the Central Government which is the Appropriate Government in respect of a generating company wholly or partly owned by it and Power Grid is a company which is owned by the Central Government. xx.. .. ********** 19. Another submission made was that permission of the writ Petitioner was not obtained which was needed as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 2006. Rule 3(a) reads as under: 3. xx.. .. ********** 19. Another submission made was that permission of the writ Petitioner was not obtained which was needed as per Rule 3 of the Rules, 2006. Rule 3(a) reads as under: 3. Licensee to carry out works.-(1) A licensee may- (a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land. 20. In the instant case, the aforesaid Rule is not applicable in view of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under: "16.4. 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 (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 purpose of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained." 21. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the aforesaid provision, the Appropriate Government has conferred the powers of Telegraph Authority vide Notification dated December 24, 2003 exercisable under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the Power Grid. It may also be mentioned that a Central Transmission Utility (CTU) is a deemed licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central Transmission Utility and is, therefore, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. It may also be mentioned that a Central Transmission Utility (CTU) is a deemed licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central Transmission Utility and is, therefore, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. This coupled with the fact that Power Grid is treated as Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested in a Telegraph Authority under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of power transmission lines. As per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest. Electrification of villages all over the country and availability of telegraph lines are the most essential requirements for growth and development of any country, economy and the well-being/progress of the citizens. The legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment/obstruction in achieving this objective and through the scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines, applied the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity transmission lines. 22. Powers of the Telegraph Authority conferred by Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, stand vested in and are enjoyed by the Power Grid. These provisions are reproduced below: ********** 23. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the Telegraph Authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The provision of Section 10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the Telegraph Authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and that the Telegraph Authority shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of exercise of those powers. 24. Further, Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the Telegraph Authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and that the Telegraph Authority shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of exercise of those powers. 24. As Power Grid is given the powers of Telegraph Authority, Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 2006 ceases to apply in the case of Power Grid by virtue of execution Clause contained in Subrule (4) of Rule 3 which reads as under: "3.(4).-Nothing contained in this Rule shall effect the powers conferred upon any licensee Under Section 164 of the Act." 25. We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the writ Petitioner that the impugned action of the Power Grid was contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. 26. We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in the given circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was arbitrary. From the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire work had already been completed by the time the writ Petitioner started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the Power Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out that all relevant factors/aspects were kept in mind while laying down the impugned transmission lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is also explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilized for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds etc. while laying down these transmission lines, it is only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on the private lands to the minimum and least extent possible. **********" 13. In the instant case, it is seen that Opposite Party No.5 has received all the requisite statutory approvals from time to time as narrated in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit dated 2nd December, 2019. It has also invited objections/representations from the public for laying the electric lines/poles through daily newspapers and executed the Long Term Open Access Agreement with Power Grid Corporation of India Limited on 5th July, 2010. It has also invited objections/representations from the public for laying the electric lines/poles through daily newspapers and executed the Long Term Open Access Agreement with Power Grid Corporation of India Limited on 5th July, 2010. It has received prior approvals from the Government of India, Ministry of Power in terms of Section 68 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for construction of dedicated transmission lines on 1st September, 2010. It has also paid compensation to all the land owners on whose lands the towers have been constructed. Such narration made by Opposite Party No.5 at paragraphs 13 and 14 of its counter affidavit is never disputed by the Petitioners nor any other Opposite Party. Having analyzed this in the light of the principles decided by the Supreme Court, no scope remains to interfere with the actions of Opposite Party No.5 in constructing the electric lines in question and functioning power supply through the same. Thus the claim of the Petitioners even on merits is unsustainable. Further, as noted hereinbefore, as of date, the prayer of the Petitioners also does not in fact survive. 14. Seen from any angle, the writ petition is without merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.