ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 sought time to file reply, however, learned counsel for the petitioner showed urgency in the matter after which learned senior counsel submitted that he is ready to argue the matter withoutfiling the reply. Thus, though the matter was listed in the ‘Fresh’ category, upon the joint request of both the counsel, the matter was heard finally on 25.11.2024 and the order was reserved. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the notice dated 04.09.2024 (Annex.2) (‘the impugned notice’) issued by the M/s Beawar Transmission Limited (‘BTL’), whereby the respondent No.2-BTL has requested the petitioner to provide her consent for the construction of Tower for 765 K.V. D/C Beawar Transmission Line, which is to pass through the land of the petitioner, and also to inform that compensation for the use of the land will be provided in accordance with the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, with all humility at command, humbly prayed that; 1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly allow the present writ petition; 2. Call for the record; 3. Quash and set aside the impugned communication/ order dated 04.09.2024 (???EXURE - 2); 4. The respondent Beawar Transmission Limited may kindly be directed to not erect/ install tower in the subject land of the petitioner against the provisions of the law; 5. Any other orders, directions may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner” 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Khatedar of the agriculture land comprising of Khasra No.355/171 of village Lunawas Charanan, Jhawar, Jodhpur (hereinafter as ‘the subject land’) and is in possession of the subject land. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.09.2024 the petitioner received the impugned notice (Annex.2) issued by the respondent No.2-BTL, whereby the petitioner has been asked to provide her consent for construction of Beawar Transmission line, which is to pass through the subject land, and for such use, the compensation will be provided to the petitioner for the possible damage to the crops/agriculture/trees at the subject land. Thereafter, the petitioner vide legal notice dated 13.09.2024 (Annex.3) raised objection and resistance to the impugned notice (Annex.2). Meanwhile, the petitioner also addressed a legal notice cum representation dated 13.09.2024 (Annex.4) to the District Magistrate, Jodhpur. Subsequently, the reply dated 26.09.2024 (Annex.5) was sent by the respondent No.2-BTL in response to the legal notice (Annex.3), however, even after the objection and resistance by the petitioner to the impugned notice (Annex.2), the matter was not put up before the District Magistrate. The petitioner thereafter, vide communication dated 04.10.2024 (Annex.6) requested the District Magistrate, Jodhpur to adjudicate the matter and restrain the respondent No.2-BTL from laying down the Transmission line through the subject land until the matter is decided. However, no hearing has been conducted by the District Magistrate in terms of Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the respondent No.2-BTL is constantly proceeding with the work of laying transmission line through the subject land. Thus, being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice (Annex.2) issued by the respondent No.2-BTL lays unilateral terms and conditions for entering into contract with the petitioner and arbitrarily seeks the consent of the petitioner for installation of tower in the subject land, which will support overhead high voltage transmission line (765 KV Beawar Transmission Line) whereas the impugned notice (Annex.2) has only been issued for laying overhead lines across the subject land. He further submitted that the term post/tower has not been used in the impugned notice (Annex.2) and on the bare perusal of the said notice the consent is only being sought for the crossing of the overhead transmission lines across the subject land. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned notice (Annex.2) cannot take the color of an agreement since it is not based on any mutual terms and the respondent No.2-BTL cannot compel the petitioner to enter into the terms in deceptive manner. He further submitted that the impugned notice is against the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner as her consent has not been taken neither any opportunity of hearing has been provided to her. He further submitted that the respondent No.2-BTL is adopting irrational course of action to acquire the subject land which is not permissible under the law. He further submitted that the respondent No.2-BTL is adopting irrational course of action to acquire the subject land which is not permissible under the law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the power conferred upon the respondent No.2-BTL by virtue of the approval dated 12.07.2023 and Extraordinary Gazette Notification Dated 21.06.2024 (Annex.5) is subject to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and The Telegraph Act, 1885. He further submitted that as objection vide legal notice (Annex.3) was raised to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the respondent No.2-BTL under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the respondent No.2-BTL was bound to refer the matter to the District Magistrate for adjudication under Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, and as such the respondent No.2-BTL could not have ignored the objection of the petitioner neither could have continued to exercise the powers under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 until the District Magistrate had passed the order under Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act permitting it to do so. He also submitted that despite no order being passed by the District magistrate under Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, the respondent No.2-BTL is conducting its work and such action is against the provisions of law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the power conferred upon the respondent No.2-BTL (A licensee) by virtue of approval dated 12.07.2023 (Annex.5) issued by the Ministry of Power is subject to the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and since objections have been raised by the petitioner to the exercise of such power by the respondent No.2-BTL, it had to obtain written permission of the District magistrate in terms of Rule 3 (1) of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 for carrying out the work and as such no permission has been taken by it, the work of laying overhead lines and installation of tower cannot be proceeded with on the subject land. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum and Ors., ( 1970 KLJ 941 ) (para 29) - (Kerala High Court); Thirthesh A.S. v. The Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka Department of Power Corporation and Ors., (2007 AIR KAR 37)- (Karnataka High Court). 9. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-BTL submitted that vide Public Notice published in Weekly Gazette (Gazette of India) dated December 16-22, 2023 objections were invited within 2 months from the publication of the said Public Notice, wherein the route of proposed Beawar Transmission Line was mentioned and at Serial no.7 of the such route, the name of the village, in which the subject land is situated, was also mentioned, however, the petitioner raised objection vide legal notice dated 13.09.2024 (Annex.3) when consent of the petitioner was sought by the respondent No.2-BLT. 9.1. He further submitted that vide order dated 20.06.2024 published in the Gazette of India (21.06.2024), the Ministry of Power, Government of India, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, has conferred all the powers to the respondent No.2-BTL for laying Beawar Transmission Line, which telegraph authority possess under the Indian Telegraph Act with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be established or maintained subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. 9.2. He further submitted that once the approval under Section 164 of the Electricity Act has been granted to a licensee, Rule 3 (1) of the Work of Licensees Rules, 2006 ceases to apply and as such even in case the owner and occupier of the subject land raises objections in respect of the works to be carried out, the permission from District Magistrate for carrying out such work is not required and as such no objections can be raised. For this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143 (para 23, 24 and 28). 10. For this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143 (para 23, 24 and 28). 10. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2-BLT further submitted that Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act only provides that in case the exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Act by the licensee is obstructed or resisted, it can take assistance of the District Magistrate for exercising such power. 11. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2-BLT further submitted that writ petition in case of transmission line project is not even maintainable, since the same is a public project. He also submitted that out of 1076 towers to be installed, 700 towers have already been installed and also that out of 20 towers that were to be installed in the area where the subject land is situated, 19 towers have already been installed except on the subject land. He also placed reliance on S.B. C.W.P. 17570/2022 [Decided on 24.04.2023] (para 12). 12. In rejoinder to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2-BLT, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objections invited vide Public Notice published in Weekly Gazette (Gazette of India) dated December 16-22, 2023 were only qua the grant of approval under Section 164 of the Electricity Act to the respondent No.2-BLT. He further submitted that in the said public notice only the name of the petitioner’s village was mentioned but the details of the land of petitioner were not given and as such she could not have raised objections. 13. Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. The Weekly Gazette of India dated 16-22 December, 2023 produced in the Court during the course of argument by learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2, is taken on record for adjudication of the present matter. 14. Before adverting to adjudicate the present matter this court finds it apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of law. 15. Section 164 of the Electricity Act reads as under: “164. 14. Before adverting to adjudicate the present matter this court finds it apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of law. 15. Section 164 of the Electricity Act reads as under: “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.” It is clear from the perusal of Section 164 of the Electricity Act that the appropriate Government, by an order in writing, can confer upon a licensee, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Telegraph 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, for the purpose of 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; however, such powers are subject to such conditions or restrictions as the government imposes and to the provisions of the Telegraph Act. In the present case the appropriate Government vide order dated 20.06.2024 (Published in Gazette of India Notification dated 21.06.2024) has conferred all the powers upon the respondent No.2-BTL (a licensee) for laying the overhead line, which the Telegraph Authority possesses under the Telegraph 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. And as such the respondent No.2-BTL has acquired all the powers that Telegraph authority possesses under Part-III of the Telegraph Act. 15.1. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act reads as under: “10. And as such the respondent No.2-BTL has acquired all the powers that Telegraph authority possesses under Part-III of the Telegraph Act. 15.1. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act reads as under: “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 exorcise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the 1[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; (c) except 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 that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.” It is evident from the conjoint reading of Section 164 of the Electricity Act and Section 10 of Telegraph Act that a licensee upon whom powers have been conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act for the purpose of laying overhead line/electricity line, may exercise power under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act to place or maintain electricity line/overhead line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property. Further, in terms of Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act such licensee does not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which such overhead line/electricity line are placed. Therefore, in the light of Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2-BTL is trying to acquire the subject land of the petitioner does not have any force. Therefore, in the light of Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2-BTL is trying to acquire the subject land of the petitioner does not have any force. Further, in terms of Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act, such licensee while exercising its power conferred under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act is under an obligation to do as little damage as possible and when this power is exercised in respect to any property other than that referred to in Section 10 (c) of the Telegraph Act (i.e., any property other than that of a property vested in or under the control or management of any local management of any local authority), and it also has to pay full compensation to the persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of such powers. Thus, a licensee, upon whom the powers have been conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, has power to place or maintain such electricity line/overhead line upon any immovable property subject to the limitations that might be provided in the order passed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act and also subject to the provisions of the Telegraph Act. 15.2. Section 16 of the Telegraph Act reads as under: “16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.—(1) If 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. (2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the 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 arc entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it. (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 of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same.” Thus, in case of any resistance or obstruction to the exercise of power as mentioned in Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate may in his discretion make an order under Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act and permit the telegraph authority to exercise power under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. Further, once the District Magistrate makes an order under Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, then if any person resists the exercise of the powers by a licensee or telegraph authority or does not give all facility for the exercise of such powers, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thus, conjoint reading of both these provisions makes it abundantly clear that there is no such obligation on a licensee to first obtain the permission of the District Magistrate, in case of any resistance or obstruction by the owner or occupier of the property and in case the District Magistrate in his discretion order that the licensee or telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them, then only powers under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act can be exercised by the licensee. On the contrary, the conjoint reading of Section 16 (1) and Section 16 (2) of the Telegraph Act makes it clear that these provisions have been enacted to provide assistance to the telegraph authority/licensee to exercise the powers under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act and do not empower the District Magistrate to pass any order contrary to the order passed by the appropriate government under Section 164 of the Electricity Act as that would render the order passed by the appropriate government under Section 164 of the Act as meaningless. Also, it cannot be said that after a licensee has been conferred with all the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, which a telegraph authority possesses under Part-III, then too such licensee is required to take permission of the District Magistrate in case of any resistance or obstruction by the owner or occupier of the property; as that would render Section 164 of the Act otiose. 15.3. Thus, the contention raised by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner, while relying upon Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, that as resistance and objection was raised by the petitioner vide legal notice dated 13.09.2024 (Annex.3), thus, the respondent No.2-BTL was bound to seek permission of the District Magistrate to exercise the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, does not have any force. Moreover, if such interpretation is given to Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, then upon every resistance or objection of the owner or occupier of the property, the licensee would have to seek permission of the District magistrate, and that could not have been the intention of the legislature while enacting such provision. On the contrary, the Electricity Act has been enacted for the purpose of taking measures conducive to the development of electricity industry, protecting the interest of the consumers and supply of electricity to all areas. On the contrary, the Electricity Act has been enacted for the purpose of taking measures conducive to the development of electricity industry, protecting the interest of the consumers and supply of electricity to all areas. And the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Century Rayon Ltd. v. IVP Ltd., (2021) 20 SCC 758 has stressed upon the need for unobstructed access for laying down the electricity transmission lines in larger public interest. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is as under: “11. The decision in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. case [Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143 ] 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. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned notice dated 04.09.2024 (Annex.2) has been passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and without dealing with the objections of the petitioner is also devoid of merit as the learned senior counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 20.06.2024 (Attached with Annex.5) issued by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that M/s Beawar Transmission Limited has published notice in local newspapers i.e. Indian Express (in English) dated 22.11.2023, Prabhat Abhinandan (in Hindi) dated 22.11.2023, Dainik Navjyoti (in Hindi) dated 22.11.2023 and in weekly Gazette of India dated 16.12.2023 for the general public to make comments/representation on the proposed transmission route within two months from the date of publication. 16.1. However, it is seen that the petitioner did not make any Comments/representation within two months from the date of publication of such notices in the local newspapers or in the Weekly Gazette of India. The petitioner has tendered a legal notice dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-3) addressed to respondent No.2-BTL after a delay of more than six months. 16.1. However, it is seen that the petitioner did not make any Comments/representation within two months from the date of publication of such notices in the local newspapers or in the Weekly Gazette of India. The petitioner has tendered a legal notice dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-3) addressed to respondent No.2-BTL after a delay of more than six months. And the petitioner tried to justify the said delay while submitting that the Public Notice published in Weekly Gazette of India dated December 16-22, 2023 was vague which only mentioned the name of the village of the petitioner i.e. Lunawas Charnan and did not mention the details of the land of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had no reason to file any objection/representation before the respondents authorities. In the representation, the petitioner has pleaded that it is only when she received the impugned notice dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure-2) directing her to give consent, the petitioner came to know that the respondents are proceeding for installation of the tower for the purpose of laying electric lines on her land. However, this Court, upon perusal of the Weekly Gazette of India dated 16-22 December, 2023 finds that apart from mentioning the names of the villages including the name of the village where petitioner resides i.e., Lunawas Charnan, it has been very specifically mentioned that the transmission lines covered under the Scheme will pass through, over, around and between the following of Tehsils, Talukas, Mandals, Block, Villages town and cities and further it has also been mentioned in the said Gazette that the copy of the route alignment is available at the office of the respondents. Thus, it was obligatory upon the petitioner to have obtained the copy of the route alignment from the office of the undersigned when the said Public Notice published in the weekly Gazette very specifically mentioned that the transmission lines covered under the scheme will pass through, over, around and between the following of Tehsils, Talukas, Mandals, Block, Villages, towns and cities in order to ascertain whether her land would also be utilised for the said purpose or not. However, the petitioner chose not to act upon the same and only after when the impugned notice dated 04.09.2024 (Annex.2) was issued by the respondent No.2-BTL, the petitioner chose to raise her objection at a very belated stage. 17. However, the petitioner chose not to act upon the same and only after when the impugned notice dated 04.09.2024 (Annex.2) was issued by the respondent No.2-BTL, the petitioner chose to raise her objection at a very belated stage. 17. Further the petitioner’s contention that in light of first proviso to Rule 3(1) of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, the respondents were required to take the permission of the District Magistrate for placing the electric supply lines and for the installation of the tower as resistance and obstruction was made by the petitioner, is baseless as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143 has observed that once the licensee has been conferred with the powers of telegraph authority by and order passed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, Rule 3(1) of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006 ceases to apply by virtue of sub-rule 4 of Rule 3. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: “23. Section 10 of the 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 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 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 the exercise of those powers. 24. Further, Section 10(d) of the 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 the exercise of those powers. 24. As Power Grid is given the powers of telegraph authority, Rule 3(1) of the 2006 Rules ceases to apply in the case of Power Grid by virtue of execution clause contained in sub-rule (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.”” In the present case, this Court finds that vide order dated 20.06.2024 in Gazette of India Notification dated 21.06.2024 (attached with Annex.5), the Ministry of Power, Government of India under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have conferred all the powers to the respondent No.2-BTL for laying upon, over head transmission lines which telegraph authority possess under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to placing the telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph or post established or maintained or to be established or maintained and in these circumstances while following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Power Grid (Supra), Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 2006 ceases to apply. 18. Thus, this Court finds that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit as petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity vide notices published in local newspapers and further the stage of invoking Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act had crossed much earlier when two months time period for raising objections/representations was given to one and all residing in the villages mentioned in public notice published in Weekly Gazette (Gazette of India) dated December 16-22, 2023 and the petitioner has woken up at a very belated stage while raising his objection. 19. Accordingly, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the interference of this court, under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not called for. Therefore, the instant writ petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Any application (s), if pending, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to the cost.