ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue any order or a direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondents in laying overhead high tension electricity lines and electric towers for a private supply of electricity across the subject property of the petitioner company and attempting to dispossess the petitioner company without its written consent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in gross violations of principles of natural justice and dehors the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Electricity Act, 2003 and rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to find an alternative route to commission the present private project of supplying electricity…..” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 engaged in the business of pharmaceuticals and it was allotted an extent of Ac.15-59 cents of site in Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh by the Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Corporation Limited and the said land was handed over to the petitioner and possession certificate was also issued to it. Besides the above extent, the petitioner purchased Ac.14.87 ½ cents of land under sale deed of the year 1983 and the same was also converted for industrial use. The petitioner came to know that the respondents approved the work of erection of 132KV high tension electric line to the respondent No.5 and electric lines are being currently erected for the purpose of private supply of electricity to the respondent No.5 and when the work was initiated to lay the electricity towers on the subject property without any prior notice, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents vide letters dated 14.08.2022 and 18.11.2022 objecting the erection of towers and overhead electric lines across the subject property of the petitioner company and further intimating that they are planning to construct R&D centre on the subject property and applied for relevant permissions from the appropriate authorities and therefore, requested the respondents to reroute the overhead electricity lines in order to avoid the occurrence of irreparable damage and injury to the petitioner company. It is the further case of the petitioner that, it was clearly stated in the said letters, which were sent by email and speed post, that no consent much less written consent was given by the petitioner company. There was no response from the respondents to the above representations. While the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the respondents would consider rerouting the erection of proposed high tension private electric line without causing any damage/disturbance to the petitioner company and its constructions plans, to its utter shock and surprise, the respondents are proceeding with the erection of towers across the subject property and they started the construction work of towers near the subject property and proposing to erect the towers across the subject property without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner company. It is the further case of the petitioner that, erection of electric towers and lines to benefit a private party cannot be done at the cost of another private party and the proposed electricity lines will directly come in the way of construction plans of the petitioner company and also cause maximum damage since the very allotment of land by APIIC for development would become redundant. In order to ensure a minimal damage, the respondents ought to have considered to re-route the proposed private electricity lines so that no party would suffer a damage and since the project is proposed to be commissioned exclusively to benefit a private party, the costs of the project would be borne by the said private party. It is the further case of the petitioner that, erecting the towers and electric lines across the subject property will raise various safety hazards and the respondents are obligated under the law to ensure that minimum damage is done while erecting towers and electric lines and the proposed route would cause maximum and irreparable damage to the petitioner company. The action of the respondents is arbitrary especially when there are various alternative routes to provide electricity to the respondent No.5. Since the respondents are dispossessing the petitioner company illegally without any notice and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 3. The action of the respondents is arbitrary especially when there are various alternative routes to provide electricity to the respondent No.5. Since the respondents are dispossessing the petitioner company illegally without any notice and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 3. The respondents 2 to 4 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit, inter alia contending that, the scheme approval was accorded for the work of Extension of EHT supply for a CMD of 20000 KVA at 132KV potential to the 5th respondent and the contract agency approval for execution of works was issued to M/s. P.Chandra Reddy & Company, Tirupathi and the said execution of the work would be under the supervision of APTRANSCO. Out of the 21 tower locations, 17 tower foundations have been completed and tower foundations for Loc.No.2,6,7 & 8 proposed in the petitioner’s property are yet to be laid and the said work could not be taken up due to right of way problem at that location. The petitioner informed through mail dated 07.09.2022 that they are discussing with respondent No.5 to resolve the issue in amicable manner and requested the field engineer not to start the work until the issue is solved. In view of the same, work could not be taken up in the petitioner’s land. While the things stood thus, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is further submitted that, it is the settled law as per the decisions of this Court in Devisetty Ramaswamy v. The Chief Engineer (MANU/AP/0114/2013) and in K .Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (MANU/AP/0565/2021) that APTRANSCO would not be required to either initiate proceedings for acquisition of land or to obtain consent from the owner for erecting tower or laying the lines and the entitlement of Land owners to compensation would arise only at a later date. It is further contended that, by exercising powers under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, APTRANSCO is empowered to lay down the towers in the public interest and issuance of notice and obtaining prior consent of the land owners is not required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India v. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors., ( 2017(5) SCC 143 ) is to the same effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India v. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors., ( 2017(5) SCC 143 ) is to the same effect. Hence, prayed to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition, inter alia contending that, the 5th respondent made an application to the TRANSCO for seeking approval for extension of power supply of 20000 KVA at 132 KV Potential from 220/132 KV Pydi Bheemavaram. Accordingly, approval for release of power supply was granted and thereafter contract agency approval was also given. As per the approval conditions, the right of way for tower foundation, erection of towers, shifting and stringing shall be arranged by the company with the assistance of the APTRANSCO. It is further submitted that, as per the tower schedule and profile one of the tower is falling in the land owned by the petitioner. The respondent requested permission of the petitioner for erection of the tower at one corner causing minimum loss to it and accordingly the director of the petitioner company has addressed a letter on 13.09.2022 that they are OK to have the line go through the northern side of the existing 220 KV line in his property and that would minimize losses to them and it will serve the purpose and that he will inform the staff accordingly. Upon receipt of the said mail, the respondent No.5 informed willingness and commenced the work and after completion of more than 95% of the work, the present writ petition is filed. It is the further contended that, this respondent is executing the work and the official respondents are only supervising the execution of the work. This respondent is a private company and the complaint is on the company and since the company is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is not maintainable on that ground alone and also on the ground of failure to disclose the fact that the petitioner gave consent to this respondent vide email dated 18.09.2022. The writ petition is not maintainable and this respondent is prepared to pay compensation for the land utilized for the purpose of erection of tower. The writ petition is not maintainable and this respondent is prepared to pay compensation for the land utilized for the purpose of erection of tower. Respondent No.5 company is established for the purpose of manufacture of life saving drugs and also chemicals and in view of the interim order, the erection of the tower is stayed and thereby this respondent could not complete the erection of line and could not get power supply to the industry. Hence, prayed to vacate the interim orders and also to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 denying the averments of the counter affidavit, inter alia contending that, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have admitted clearly that the present project of erecting electric towers is exclusively for benefit of the respondent No.5 and as such no element of public interest is involved in the present project. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are aware of the settled position of law that unless the owner of the land gives consent in writing no electric tower can be erected exclusively for the private purpose at the cost of another private individual. The facts of the present case completely differ from the facts of the case laws mentioned in the counter affidavit. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. The petitioner also filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 denying the averments of the counter affidavit, inter alia contending that, the petitioner has never given consent with a clear go ahead to the respondent No.5 to lay down electric tower across the property of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that, an e-mail was sent to the respondent No.5 on 13.09.2022 stating that, the petitioner would be willing to part away the northern side of the existing 220 KV line for the purpose of laying down electric tower and at the end of e-mail, the petitioner asked the respondent No.5 to confirm if they are agreeable to the proposal made by the petitioner. However, there was no response from respondent No.5. However, there was no response from respondent No.5. Further, the respondents are not laying the electric tower on the northern side of the existing 220 KV line, but they are laying down the electric tower on the southern side of the 220 KV line and attempting to intrude much deeper into the rest of the petitioner’s property, which is completely unacceptable on the part of the respondent No.5 to not even responding to the proposal made by the petitioner and now contending that basis on the e-mail dated 13.09.2022 they approached the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and got the power line route approved. It is further submitted that, the fact remains is that the respondents are not laying down the electric line not on the northern side of the existing 220 KV line and therefore, the respondents are not authorized in any manner to lay down the electric tower in the petitioner’s property. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, which is a State, who are actually laying down the electric towers and lines for the benefit and interest of private individual, hence, the writ petition is maintainable. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Standing counsel for APTRANSCO representing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5. 8. Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that, the writ petition having been filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4, which is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the same is maintainable. The learned counsel would further submit that, since the present projection of erecting electric towers and laying electric lines is exclusively for the benefit of a private individual and purely for private purpose, the element of public interest is completely absent and hence, the decisions relied on by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The counter affidavit contents of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would clarify that the respondent No.5 has to arrange right of way for tower foundations, erection of towers, shifting and stringing. 2 to 4 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The counter affidavit contents of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would clarify that the respondent No.5 has to arrange right of way for tower foundations, erection of towers, shifting and stringing. The learned counsel would further submit that, the petitioner did not suppress any material facts from being disclosed in the writ affidavit. The petitioner has never given outright consent to lay down electric tower across the property. In fact, the petitioner sent e-mail to the respondent No.5 stating that the petitioner would be willing to part away the northern side of the existing 220 KV line and asked the respondent No.5 to confirm if they are agreeable, but the respondent No.5 never responded to the proposal. However, the respondents are not laying the electric tower on the northern side but they are laying down the electric tower on southern side of 220 KV line. Thus, the respondent No.5, who did not respond to the proposal, cannot now say that basing on the email dated 13.09.2022, they got the power line route approved. The respondent No.5 did not even file a single document to establish that the petitioner has given consent to respondent to erect the towers, which is a pre-requisite and mandatory before obtaining a right of way to lay down an electric tower for a private purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the issue involved in this writ petition is regarding supply of electricity and hence the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 are only applicable to the facts of the case and has drawn attention of this Court to Rule 3(1)(a) and submitted that prior consent of the owner is required. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned standing counsel for APTRANSCO, in elaboration would submit that, as per the scheme approval, APTRANSCO is only supervising the execution of the subject work and pursuant to the mail dated 07.09.2022 issued by the petitioner that they are trying to resolve the issue amicably with respondent No.5, the work in the petitioner’s land is not started. The learned counsel would further submit that as per section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, APTRANSCO would not require to either initiate proceedings for acquisition of land or to obtain consent from the owner for erecting tower or laying the lines and compensation part will only come at later stage and it is also the settled law as per the decisions in Devisetty Ramaswamy v. The Chief Engineer, K.Subrahmanyam V. State of Andhra Pradesh and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India v. Century Textiles & Industris Ltd., & Ors. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5, in elaboration would submit that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of the e-mail sent by him to the respondent No.5 giving consent to part with his land to the north of the existing 220 KV line and basing on which the respondent No.5 has got approval of the route and commenced the work. Having given consent, the petitioner is estopped from revoking it after completion of 95% of the work. The senior learned counsel would further submit that, the action of the respondent No.5, a private company, which is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is questioned in the writ petition and hence the writ petition is not maintainable on that ground and also on the ground of suppression of material facts. The learned senior counsel would further contend that Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 are not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the petitioner instead of approaching the civil Court invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is impermissible. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties, it may be appropriate to extract Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, which is relevant for the present purpose. “164. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties, it may be appropriate to extract Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, which is relevant for the present purpose. “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 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 purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained.” 12. According this Section, the appropriate Government may, for placing of electric lines or an electric plant for transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications, confer upon any public officer or licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supply of electricity under this Act, any of the powers of the telegraph authority. 13. In exercise of the powers under Section 180(2)(b) read with Section 67(2) of the Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.24, Energy (PR-II) Department, dated 27.02.2007. Rule 3(1)(a) though stipulates that consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land is necessary for a licensee to carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through or against, any building or on, over and under any land, however Rule 3(6) in clear terms says that nothing contained in this Rule shall not effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act. 14. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 164 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules,2007 makes it abundantly clear that the appropriate Government may confer upon any public officer or licensee or any other person any of the powers of the telegraph authority. 14. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 164 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules,2007 makes it abundantly clear that the appropriate Government may confer upon any public officer or licensee or any other person any of the powers of the telegraph authority. Thus, consent of the owner of the property is not at all required for erection of towers and overhead electric lines across any land. 15. The observations made in Power Grid Corporation’s case referred to supra are to the effect that 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 and thus the legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment/obstruction in achieving this objective through the scheme of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the decision highlights the imperative and the need for unobstructed access for laying down the electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest as these are essential requirements for growth and development of the country, economy and well being of the citizens. 16. The other decisions referred to above relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are to the effect that APTRANSCO need not initiate proceedings for acquisition of land and also there is no need to obtain consent of the land owners for erecting tower or laying the lines and the entitlement of land owners to compensation would arise only at a later point. 17. From the above relevant provisions of law that govern the field and also keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision, the merits of the case have to be evaluated. 18. The purpose of erection of towers and overhead electric lines across the property of the petitioner is purely for the purpose of providing electricity to 5th respondent, a private company. Hence, it is clear that the proposed project is meant purely for private purpose and the existence of element of public purpose is not there. 18. The purpose of erection of towers and overhead electric lines across the property of the petitioner is purely for the purpose of providing electricity to 5th respondent, a private company. Hence, it is clear that the proposed project is meant purely for private purpose and the existence of element of public purpose is not there. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the need for unobstructed access for laying down the electricity transmission lines is in the larger public interest, but not for private purposes which exists in the present case. As rightly contended for the petitioner, erection of electric towers and lines to benefit a private party cannot be done at the cost of another private property. 19. The gamut of the legislation and so also the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts that the larger public interest prevails over the property rights of the individuals. Thus, either Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the decisions relied on, would not come to the aid of either the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 or the 5th respondent for the reason that larger public interest cannot at any rate be equated with that of the private interest of a particular individual or firm. For providing electricity to a private firm, the utility value of the property owned by another private firm cannot be permitted to be impaired. The perusal of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 also make it clear that intention of the legislature would only be to provide unobstructed access for growth and development of the country and well being of the citizens but not to benefit a private individual at the costs of another. 20. The counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 delineates that the tower schedule and profile was approved subject to the condition that “Right of way for tower foundations, erection of towers, shifting and stringing shall be arranged by the company with the assistance of APTRANSCO”. This indubitably shows that the respondent No.5 shall obtain permission of the land owners by convincing them, however with the assistance of APTRANSCO. This condition speaks volumes that APTRANSCO cannot exercise powers under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 if the project is purely for private purpose. 21. The respondent No.5 disputed maintainability of the writ petition on twin grounds. This condition speaks volumes that APTRANSCO cannot exercise powers under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 if the project is purely for private purpose. 21. The respondent No.5 disputed maintainability of the writ petition on twin grounds. Since the works are to be done under the supervision of the officials of APTRANSCO, which is a State, the writ petition is maintainable. Regarding suppression, it is an well established principle of law that for invoking equitable jurisdiction, the party should approach the court with clean hands and suppression of material disentitles him to get the relief. 22. No doubt, the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not contain any averment regarding email sent by the petitioner to respondent No.5. The petitioner could only choose to mention it after the same was referred to by the respondent No. 5 in his counter. In reply affidavit, the petitioner for the first time divulged that he sent an email to the respondent No.5 setting out a proposal, but there was no response from respondent No.5 to the same. 23. The e-mail placed on record shows that the petitioner had made a proposal to respondent No.5. According to the said proposal, the petitioner expressed his willingness to part away the northern (Uttaram) side of the existing 220 KV line for the purpose of laying down electric tower, which would minimize the loss that may be occurred to his property. The counter affidavit contents of the respondent No.5 is to the similar effect. It is the complaint of the petitioner that respondent No.5 did not respond to the said proposal, though the petitioner through the said email asked the respondent No.5 to confirm if they are agreeable. Whereas, the respondent No.5 states that basing on the said email, he pushed through the proposed project and obtained necessary approvals. From the above, it is clear that, prior to the commencement of the project, the petitioner gave consent to the respondent No.5 to part with some land and the respondent No.5 has agreed for the said proposal and commenced the project. 24. Thus, there is consensus ad idem between the parties as to the location where the tower has to be erected and through which direction the electric lines are to be taken over the subject property. 25. 24. Thus, there is consensus ad idem between the parties as to the location where the tower has to be erected and through which direction the electric lines are to be taken over the subject property. 25. The reply affidavit of the petitioner filed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 further states that, the respondents are now trying to lay the electric tower on the southern side of the 220 KV line, but not on the northern side of the existing 220 KV line. As already said, there is a clear admission of the 5th respondent in his counter affidavit that the petitioner expressed his willingness to part with northern side of existing 220 KV line. Thus, he cannot be permitted to give a go-bye to the same. Completion of 95% of the work would not be an excuse and that would not authorize the respondent No.5 to cause whatever damage he can cause to the property of a private individual, deviating from the original understanding which according to him also would minimize the loss to the property of the petitioner. 26. In view of the above, the respondent No.5 is permitted to erect electric tower on the northern side of the existing 220 KV line as originally agreed upon between the petitioner and respondent No.5, but not on the south of the existing 220 KV line as complained by the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are also bound by the said understanding entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and they cannot exercise the powers under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, for the reasons stated in the preceding paras of this order. 27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondent No.5 is permitted to get the electric tower erected and the overhead electric lines laid through the contract agency under the supervision of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 strictly in accordance with the understanding between the petitioner and respondent No.5 arrived at by them through e-mail referred to supra. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.