ORDER : 1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “........to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to lay the line and tower in the said plantation of mine in Survey No. 259 of Venkata Krishan Puram Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District including issuing of the Letter in reference No. Lr. No. AEE/400 KV Const./SD-II/VJA/E.Vem.K.Kota/D. No. 168/2016 dated 15.2.2017 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, the 6th respondent herein, and issuing of the notice dated 15.02.2017 bearing Notice No. 42 under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Act No. XIII of 1885) as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and mala-fide one and pass such orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit......” 2. The basic case of the petitioner as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac. 14.16 cents of horticultural/plantation land in Survey No. 259 of Venkata Krishna Puram Village. The horticultural plantation raised in the said land is (a) Oil Palm (b) Inter crop of Cocoa and Coconut. A High Tension Line of 200/400 KV is going through the petitioner’s land on the North East Corner and a Tower was erected in the land of the petitioner, as a result of which, half acre of land has gone into erection of tower and another half acre surrounding the said tower was left barren without plantation, so as to avoid accidents. In the year 2001, an accident occurred and one labourer died due to electric shock while plucking the oil palm fruit bunches. The respondents have taken up the work of construction of 400 KV Electrical Sub-Station at Kamavarapu Kota Village to connect the same with 400/220 KV Sub-Station located at Vemagiri, East Godavari District and started laying of the connecting line. As per the alignment planned, the respondents have given the markings for all the towers for laying the said line. But no such markings were given in respect of the petitioner’s lands. As per the alignment planned, the respondents have given the markings for all the towers for laying the said line. But no such markings were given in respect of the petitioner’s lands. In other words, by the said alignment, there was no proposal for laying the line to go through the petitioner’s lands and therefore, no survey was done with regard to the petitioner’s lands nor any peg marks were marked. On 22.12.2016, the 7th respondent along with the supporting staff and others visited the petitioner’s land for the purpose of giving tentative markings for laying a Tower on the South Western side of the land and damaged the plantation in that area. The respondents have changed the alignment with a mala-fide intention, in order to protect the interest of the owners of the land adjoining or opposite to the petitioner’s land. The petitioner under those circumstances, made representations to the concerned respondent authorities to call for the Survey Reports/Sketches to comprehend the issue and take steps to rectify the same. The 7th respondent addressed a Letter/Notice dated 15.02.2017 to the petitioner informing that the above mentioned line is passing through the petitioner’s fields/lands in Survey No. 259 and a Tower (location No. 87/1) is to be constructed in the petitioner’s land and the foundation work will be started within 15 days. The action of the respondent-authorities in changing the alignment of line is arbitrary, mala-fide one and only with a view to see that the line do not pass through the land of the other owners and to favour them. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Anoop Koushik Karavadi appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the chronological events and the material placed on record made his submissions. 3. Heard Mr. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Anoop Koushik Karavadi appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the chronological events and the material placed on record made his submissions. He submits that the 3rd respondent issued a Notification in the News Papers on 28.02.2013 (published in the Government Gazette dated 04.03.2013) inviting objections on the premise that the 1st respondent proposes to lay a line for augmenting the evacuation of power from M/s. Hinduja Power Corporation Limited and as a part of the said scheme, “400 KVA” Twin Moose DC line from 400/220 KV, Vemagiri Sub- Station to the proposed 400/220 KV, Kamavarapu Kota Sub-Station is proposed. He submits that neither the survey numbers nor the lands likely to be affected or the route of the proposed line has been mentioned, so as to facilitate the land owners/interested parties to submit their objections. He submits that the 4th respondent awarded the Preliminary Survey work of the proposed line to M/s. Niketha Consultancy, Bangalore and the said agency submitted a Preliminary Survey report to the 4th respondent/Superintending Engineer proposing three different routes for laying the said line, which in-turn was forwarded to the 3rd respondent/Chief Engineer, who approved second route on 21.11.2014 as recommended by the 4th respondent, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The learned Senior Counsel however submits that as per the said approval, the length of the route was 91.533 kms. whereas as per the Original Notification, it was 60 kms. 5. The learned counsel submits that a detailed survey was conducted and the survey report was forwarded to the 4th respondent, who approved the same vide Memo dated 21.10.2015, subject to the conditions set out therein. He submits that subsequently a purchase order was placed on M/s. EMC - MEIL J.V. Limited, Kolkata for Check Survey as contemplated in terms of the Reference Manual and on 12.01.2016, the respondent No. 4 approved the proposal of the 5th respondent/Executive Engineer dated 08.01.2016 with regard to Check Survey from Tower No. AP 78/0 to Tower No. AP 79/0 for a length of 1.08 km. and Tower No. AP 83/0 to Tower No. 88/0 for length of 0.106 km. and Tower No. AP 83/0 to Tower No. 88/0 for length of 0.106 km. Thereafter, as stated in the affidavit, on 22.12.2016 the 7th respondent along with supporting staff, damaged the plantation of the petitioner in view of the change in alignment. He submits that the petitioner on 26.12.2016 addressed a detailed representation to the respondents and requested them to call for Survey Reports/Sketches and as there was no response, an application under the Right to Information Act was made to the State Public Information Officer/A.P.Transco requesting for: (i) Survey Report of the land. (ii) Route Map and Alignment Map or Sketch report of the land. (iii) Details of proposed or erected Tower land location, Survey Number wise at Venkata Krishna Puram Village. 6. Pointing out the circumstances under which the present writ petition was filed on 07.03.2017, he submits that along with the writ petition, the petitioner had sought for appointment of Advocate Commissioner vide WPMP No. 10142/2017 (I.A. No. 3 of 2017) and also filed WPMP No. 10594 of 2017 (I.A. No. 4 of 2017) to receive additional material papers. He submits that a learned Judge vide Orders dated 10.03.2017 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in WPMP No. 10141 of 2017 (I.A. No. 2 of 2017) and that on 11.03.2017, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Writ Rules for inspection of files/record pertaining to the land in question and as there is no response, the petitioner filed WPMP No. 13111 of 2017 (I.A. No. 5 of 2017) seeking a direction to the respondents for inspection of the files/records. 7. He submits that there was no opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections to the Notification dated 28.02.2013 (published in Official Gazette on 04.03.2013) as it was vague and did not contain the necessary particulars and therefore the action of the respondents pursuant to the said Notification is violative of principles of natural justice. He also submits that the action of the respondents is illegal and in contravention of (A) Regulations of the Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Construction of Electrical Plants and Electric Lines), 2010 (herein after referred to as ‘Regulations’) framed under Section (2) 177 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) and (B) the instructions contained in Volume II of Manual on Construction of Transmission Projects. While stating that the said Manual is binding on the respondent-authorities and has to be followed, the learned Senior Counsel had referred to the relevant Clauses i.e., 1.3-Survey, 1.3.1-System Planning Stage, 1.3.3-Map Study, 1.3.4-Walkover Survey, 1.3.5-Preliminary Survey, 1.3.6-Detailed Survey, 1.3.10-Highway Crossings, 1.3.12-Power Line Crossings, 1.3.17-Statutory Clearance in Construction and made submissions. He contends that the respondent-authorities though filed counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit, had not filed the relevant documents i.e., the TOPO Map etc., which provides for Bird’s view of the entire project, despite the request made by the petitioner under the Writ Rules. He submits that as per the Preliminary Survey Report, three routes were identified and the respondent No. 3 approved the second route. Nothing was revealed as to how the survey was conducted or how the land of the petitioner is selected. He submits that as per the Guidelines set out in the Manual referred to above, the High Tension Lines should be in a straight line and deviations can take place, only if it is necessary and inevitable. He also submits that the route, which is optimal should be selected and that as the relevant information was not furnished to the petitioner nor filed along with the counter, the petitioner is at loss to understand as to how the respondent-authorities finalized the present route affecting the property/land of the petitioner. 8. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the deviations in erection of towers to the detriment of the petitioner by changing the alignment of route that too, in contravention of the Regulations referred to above and the instructions contained in the Reference Manual is not sustainable. He submits that in fact, the petitioner had got conducted a survey by private agency as the respondent-authorities are not furnishing the relevant material/TOPO Map etc. and as per the survey: (i) The Tower Line, after the Tower No. AP 85, was deviated towards North, instead of going straight. (ii) The Tower Line, after the Tower No. AP 86, was also deviated towards Southern direction and then the said Tower Line proceeded upto the Tower No. AP 87. (iii) After the Tower Location No. AP 87, the said Tower Line was again shifted towards Northern direction and consequently the said Tower Line was made to go through the petitioner’s land in Survey No. 259. (iii) After the Tower Location No. AP 87, the said Tower Line was again shifted towards Northern direction and consequently the said Tower Line was made to go through the petitioner’s land in Survey No. 259. He submits that the Tower Line direction, instead of laying in a straight line was changed at 3 places, by virtue of which it was made to go through the land of the petitioner. 9. Referring to the Map (Page 278) showing the distances between the Tower to Tower and the tower locations pointed out therein, more particularly with reference to the Tower No. AP 84 to Tower No. AP 88, the learned counsel submits that as shown in the said Map, if the towers are laid through the route marked in green line, the deviations would have been avoided, except at point ‘X’. He submits that Tower No. AP 86 and Tower No. AP 87/1 and 87/2 are coming close to the road and the respondent-authorities are required to maintain 1.5 times of the Tower height to have sufficient tower falling distance as contemplated under Clause 1.3.10 of the Reference Manual. He submits that the requirement of crossing span of 250 meters was also not adhered to. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel also refers to the relevant paras in the reply-cum-additional affidavit of the petitioner and the statement at Page No. 11 of Annexure-I filed along with chronology of events. He submits that had the Lines were laid straight in the route marked in green colour, in the event of falling of towers, no causalities would occur. He submits that the only justification on the part of the respondent-authorities for deviating the route at Tower No. AP 85 is to avoid 132 KV Line, which is situated in the route marked in the green line, that while doing so, the respondent-authorities overlooked the crucial aspect that they are deviating the norms/guidelines set out in the Reference Manual and the Regulations. 10. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the distance between the Tower Nos. AP 87 and AP 87/1 should be 365.9 meters, but on site, it is 374.79 meters. He submits that if the distance is reduced by 8.89 meters and maintained as per the norms, the Tower would be out of the petitioner’s land. 10. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the distance between the Tower Nos. AP 87 and AP 87/1 should be 365.9 meters, but on site, it is 374.79 meters. He submits that if the distance is reduced by 8.89 meters and maintained as per the norms, the Tower would be out of the petitioner’s land. He submits that the averments made by the petitioner in the additional affidavit in this regard have not been denied and the same amounts to admission. 11. Referring to Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short ‘the Rules’), more particularly Rule 87 (6) of the said Rules, the learned Senior Counsel contends that in the additional counter-affidavit/second counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the deviation from Tower No. AP 85 was maintained with right angle (90 degrees angle) while crossing the 132 KV Line so as to comply with the Rule 87(6) of the Rules. He submits that the respondents have not stated at what angle the proposed line is crossing 132 KV Line, if not deviated from Tower No. AP 85. The learned Senior Counsel submits that though the respondent-authorities had an opportunity to rectify and proceed with the laying of lines, erection of towers in terms of the norms/guidelines, they proceeded with the execution of works as per the changed alignment that too, without obtaining prior permissions from the concerned authorities especially R&B Department. In this regard, the learned counsel refers to Regulation 88 – Routing of Transmission Line. 12. The learned counsel while reiterating the contentions with regard to non-furnishing of all the documents/reports/TOPO Map etc., and the Communication dated 10.06.2022 of the State Public Information Officer addressed to the petitioner to the effect that the information sought for would be prejudicial to A.P. Transco and the petitioner may take the information from the Hon’ble High Court, further submits that the respondent-authorities failed to follow their own instructions/regulations/norms and Rules. Be that as it may. He submits that they can as well correct their mistake, if Tower No. 87/1 is shifted 9 meters towards the West and it will go out of the petitioner’s land. Making the said submissions and referring to the citations compilation, the learned counsel submits that the contravention of even Non-Statutory Rules/instructions can be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if they smacks of arbitrariness. Making the said submissions and referring to the citations compilation, the learned counsel submits that the contravention of even Non-Statutory Rules/instructions can be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if they smacks of arbitrariness. He also submits that the action of the respondents is not sustainable as the relevant factors were not taken into consideration and irrelevant factors were taken into account, while taking a decision for changing the alignment of the line other than the originally proposed. 13. Refuting the said contentions, Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the A.P. Transco/respondent-authorities addressed detailed arguments. He submits that as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the 1st respondent is conferred with the powers to lay Transmission Lines and erect Towers for the said purpose. He submits that the scheme in respect of the subject matter High Tension Tower Lines was published on 28.02.2013 in Andhra Jyothi and Indian Express Newspapers and no objections were received. He submits that there is no necessity to issue individual notices, that the preliminary works of survey of line was entrusted to the consultants and after the preliminary survey, the 4th respondent forwarded the report to the respondent No. 3/Chief Engineer and the same was approved. Thereafter, for detailed survey, the same agency was entrusted the job and on 21.10.2015, detailed survey was completed, thereafter the E.C.E. Contractor was entrusted the execution works and the check survey was approved on 12.01.2016. He submits that in all, four surveys were conducted and all the technical aspects have been taken into consideration. He further submits that after Check Survey of distance etc., the same would be approved by the Chief Engineer and then the Towers would be erected. He submits that after 90% work is completed, the present writ petition is filed. 14. In elaboration and referring to the counter-affidavit averments, the learned Senior Counsel submits that seven tower locations preceding the Tower Location bearing No. AP 87/1 in the petitioner’s land and 15 Tower locations succeeding to it continuously have been completed, except the Tower location bearing AP 87/1 in the petitioner’s land. 14. In elaboration and referring to the counter-affidavit averments, the learned Senior Counsel submits that seven tower locations preceding the Tower Location bearing No. AP 87/1 in the petitioner’s land and 15 Tower locations succeeding to it continuously have been completed, except the Tower location bearing AP 87/1 in the petitioner’s land. He submits that since there is no provision for acquisition of land for laying of electrical lines, except for payment of compensation, the details of the lands and land owners are not required for conducting the line surveys and tower spotting, as the same will be done on the profile with the survey data and tower spotting data, that at the time of Check Survey, the peg marking at tower location will be done on ground. He submits that before taking up tower foundation work, the details of the land owner where a particular tower is sought to be erected will be enquired into for serving the notice about payment of compensation for the tower location and for the damage of crops and trees if any, in the execution of the works. He further submits that the peg marking of the tower location is only to locate the tower exactly on the ground as per the approved line profile and it is not possible to change the said location other than the place mentioned in the approved line profile. 15. Referring to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that the tower location is changed to favour third parties. He submits that except making some vague allegations, the neighbours of the petitioner or any other parties for the benefit of whom the original alignment is allegedly changed, are impleaded in the writ petition. He submits that the scope of interference in a matter like the present, involving highly technical aspects is very remote and insofar as the decision making process is concerned, there is no flaw and the erection of towers by the respondent-authorities is based on the relevant factors including the safety of public at large. He submits that the scope of interference in a matter like the present, involving highly technical aspects is very remote and insofar as the decision making process is concerned, there is no flaw and the erection of towers by the respondent-authorities is based on the relevant factors including the safety of public at large. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that when the power of the respondent-authorities to lay the towers is not questioned and as the various submissions/contentions made on behalf of the petitioner are on factual aspects, the same cannot be examined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as disputed questions are involved. 16. Insofar as the contention with reference to the Map at Page 278 of the material papers, that if the line is laid through the route marked in green colour, there would be only one deviation at point ‘X’ he submits that the same is not technically feasible as explained in detail in Para No. 3 of the Rejoinder filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. With regard to the contention that Tower Nos. 86 and 87/ 1 & 2 are close to the road and 1.5 times the tower height has to be maintained, the learned counsel submits that Clause 1.3.10 is applicable only to Highway crossings and not to the present case, that only a 10 feet village road is existing and no highway is passing in and around the petitioner’s land. He further submits that Tower Nos.86 and 87 are called angular towers, that they are nearer to the road as in the event of break down, repair works can be attended to immediately. While reiterating that the subject matter works involves highly technical aspects and laying of lines by the respondent-authorities are within the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the settled legal position, the Courts would be loathe to examine the same. He submits that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the contentions alleging violation of the Regulations/Non-adherence to Reference Manual do not stand to reason. He submits that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the contentions alleging violation of the Regulations/Non-adherence to Reference Manual do not stand to reason. The learned Senior Counsel submits that where the towers are to be erected, the strings are to be laid etc., are highly technical in nature, well within the realm of the respondent-authorities and after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the works of erection of Towers/laying of Lines including through the subject land is proceeded with. On instructions, he submits that it is not possible/feasible to avoid the petitioner’s land, as poultry farms are existing on the other side and further that the entire angular distance has to be changed. He submits that the total project cost is Rs.205.58 crores, length of line is 91.533 kms and work was held up at Tower Location No. 87/1 in the petitioner’s land. He submits that non-completion of the project undertaken in public interest, causes transmission of poor quality of power at low voltage and may lead to Grid failure when the demand increases. Making the said submissions and relying on the decisions placed in the compilation book, the learned Senior Counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 17. In reply to the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-authorities, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that as the request of the petitioner for furnishing of information/material was not acceded to, adverse interference has to be drawn as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that the contention that the matter involves technical issues and disputed questions of fact and therefore the same cannot be examined by this Court or that the writ petition has to be thrown out on the said aspect, merits no appreciation. He submits that the respondent-authorities have violated the norms/guidelines/Rules and Regulations as contended earlier and in such circumstances, there is no bar and in fact no plea has been taken to the effect the writ petition is not maintainable, that it involves technical aspects. He further submits that except a mere denial about the distance between the towers, the respondent-authorities have not explained anything in the counter-affidavit traversing the averments made by the petitioner. He further submits that except a mere denial about the distance between the towers, the respondent-authorities have not explained anything in the counter-affidavit traversing the averments made by the petitioner. Referring to Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Senior Counsel submits that as there is no specific denial of the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit, the same amounts to admission of the contents of the affidavit. He further contends that submissions with reference to Clause 1.3.10 is misconceived and the said Clause clearly refers to the “Roads” to be crossed though the heading mentions “Highway crossings.” Even otherwise, the learned counsel submits that the Regulation 88 of the above referred Regulations refers to Roads only, but not Highways or National Highways, that even Regulation 89 (2)(a) also refers to Roads, but not Highways. He submits that the Roads includes all Roads not only highways, that it cannot be restricted to Highways and the safety of all commuters going on any road is to be ensured. 18. Insofar as the contention with regard to the mala-fides are concerned, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the action of the respondents amounts to Malice in fact and Malice in Law, as the change in the alignment was not done in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the judgments cited on behalf of the respondent-authorities are distinguishable and none of the citations are on the point as to whether the power exercised by the respondent-authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Making the said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel urges for allowing the writ petition. 19. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the following among other points arise for consideration by this Court. Point No. 1: (1) Whether the action of the respondent-authorities in proposing to lay Line and Tower in the subject matter land is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner for raising objections pursuant to the Notification dated 04.03.2013 and as it is lacking in necessary particulars? 20. Point No. 1: (1) Whether the action of the respondent-authorities in proposing to lay Line and Tower in the subject matter land is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner for raising objections pursuant to the Notification dated 04.03.2013 and as it is lacking in necessary particulars? 20. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that as the Notification with regard to laying of lines did not contain the necessary particulars like names of the land owners, survey numbers etc., objections could not be submitted/raised and therefore, the action of the respondent-authorities in proceeding with the laying of lines, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Contradicting the same, the leaned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities submits that there is no requirement of mentioning the details and even otherwise the same is not contemplated under Law. 21. Before dealing with the said contentions, it may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner has not challenged the said Notification dated 04.03.2013 specifically. Be that as it may. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner merits no acceptance in the light of the decision of a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Devisetty Ramaswamy v. Chief Engineer, 2013 SCC Online AP 112. In the said case the petitioner complained that no notice or opportunity was given to him prior to the decision to install a tower in his lands, that the authorities had diverted the transmission lines at the instance of the big ryots of Madala Village etc. The APTRANSCO filed a counter stating that except for erection of this tower in the petitioner's lands, the entire line over an extent of seven kilometres had been completed and that only the stringing of the line was to be finished. It is pointed out that the proposed line was for the benefit of the public at large and to meet the additional load demand in Guntur and Prakasam Districts. In the said case it was contended inter alia that the petitioner’s property rights were affected that the respondents had no right to lay lines or erect towers through “petitioner’s lands without following the due procedure, that the APTRANSCO had no right or jurisdiction to deviate from or modify the sanctioned scheme. In the said case it was contended inter alia that the petitioner’s property rights were affected that the respondents had no right to lay lines or erect towers through “petitioner’s lands without following the due procedure, that the APTRANSCO had no right or jurisdiction to deviate from or modify the sanctioned scheme. It was also argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing at any point of time. 22. The learned Judge while noting that the ‘key issue that arises for consideration is whether any legal obligation is cast upon the APTRANSCO to publish a Notification with regard to the transmission scheme and call for objections from those affected thereby and in consequence, the issue would also arise as to whether the APTRANSCO is required to obtain the consent of the owners/occupiers of the lands affected by such transmission scheme’ inter alia held as follows: “On the above analysis, this Court finds that there is no provision in the Act of 1885 which mandates prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the owner/occupier of a premises affected by the laying of lines or posts and therefore, there is no question of such owner/occupier being put on notice or demanding an opportunity of hearing before the grounding of the scheme. Section 17 postulates that such a right would arise only after laying of the lines or posts and upon the failure of the authority concerned to act upon a requisition to remove or relocate such lines or posts etc.” 23. In the light of the above decision, the various contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. Point No. 1 is accordingly answered against the petitioner. Point No. 2: (2) Whether the action of the respondents in changing the alignment of the line is vitiated by mala-fides and arbitrary exercise of power, as the same was done to protect the interest of third parties? 24. Point No. 1 is accordingly answered against the petitioner. Point No. 2: (2) Whether the action of the respondents in changing the alignment of the line is vitiated by mala-fides and arbitrary exercise of power, as the same was done to protect the interest of third parties? 24. With reference to the point under consideration, in Para No. 18 of the affidavit, the petitioner had specifically asserted that “changing the alignment of the line is arbitrary and mala-fide one, for the sole reason that in order to protect the interest of the owners of the land adjoining or opposite to my land, the alignment has been changed.” However, the petitioner had not chosen to implead the owners of land adjoining or opposite to the petitioner’s land at whose instance the alignment has been allegedly changed. In the absence of the specific details and without impleading the said land owners as eo-nominee parties to the writ petition, the contention that the action of the respondent-authorities is arbitrary and mala-fide cannot be accepted. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. In Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “25. The plea of the respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of the national highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the national highways is actuated by mala-fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the appellants are tainted by mala-fides.” 26. In Girias Investment Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, 2008 (7) SCC 53 wherein in Para No. 14, it was held as follows: “14. It is obvious from a reading of the pleadings quoted above that only vague allegations of mala-fides have been levelled and that too without any basis. In Girias Investment Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, 2008 (7) SCC 53 wherein in Para No. 14, it was held as follows: “14. It is obvious from a reading of the pleadings quoted above that only vague allegations of mala-fides have been levelled and that too without any basis. There can be two ways by which a case of mala-fides can be made out; one that the action which is impugned has been taken with the specific object of damaging the interest of the party and, secondly, such action is aimed at helping some party which results in damage to the party alleging mala-fides. It would be seen that there is no allegation whatsoever in the pleadings that the case falls within the first category but an inference of mala-fides has been sought to be drawn in the course of a vague pleading that the change had been made to help certain important persons who would have lost their land under the original acquisition. These allegations have been replied to in the paragraph quoted above and reveal that the land which had been de-notified belonged to those who had absolutely no position or power. In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by Mr. Dave have absolutely no bearing on the facts of the case.” 27. Further, in the light of the categorical stand taken in the affidavit, the contention sought to be advanced that the action of the respondent-authorities amounts to Malice in Law and Malice in fact, in the absence of a specific plea in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be appreciated. There is no arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. Point No. 2 is accordingly answered against the petitioner. Point No. 3: (3) Whether action of the respondents in laying of Towers/Line is contrary to the Regulations and Reference Manual which are binding on the authorities and is not tenable? 28. Referring to the instructions contained in various paras in the Reference Manual mentioned earlier as also Regulation No. 88 of the Regulations, 2010, the learned Senior Counsel advanced arguments touching the Tower Locations pointed out in the Map at Page No. 278 of the material papers. 28. Referring to the instructions contained in various paras in the Reference Manual mentioned earlier as also Regulation No. 88 of the Regulations, 2010, the learned Senior Counsel advanced arguments touching the Tower Locations pointed out in the Map at Page No. 278 of the material papers. Submissions made extensively with regard to the alleged deviations, differences in the distances between the towers as also the route, which was marked in green colour, though appears to be attractive at the first blush, the same commends no acceptance. On an appreciation of the pleadings, more particularly the counter-affidavits of the respondents and the reply-cum-additional affidavit of the petitioner, this Court concurs with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-authorities that the matter involves highly technical issues apart from disputed questions of fact. In the present case, four surveys were conducted and the best route according to the respondent authorities was approved and the same is well within the domain of authorities having the technical expertise. The Courts are not well equipped to delve into the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether particular alignment would be proper. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made efforts to impress upon the Court to the effect that the issues involved are with regard to violation/nonadherence of the Regulations, as also guidelines/norms in the Reference Manual binding on the respondent-authorities, in the considered opinion of this Court that in the matters of laying of Lines and erection of Towers/position of Towers involving technical issues which are well within the realm of the licensee, the Regulations and the guidelines may at best be regarded as directory in nature. Though there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of Law that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner alone [Bhavngar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Limited, 2003 (2) SCC 111 ] and in the absence of statutory instructions, administrative instructions should prevail [Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. 1987 (4) SCC 482 ] and that if executive instructions are not followed by the authorities, the relief can be sought for as held in Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. AIR 1968 SC 718 , this Court is of the opinion that the same are not applicable to the fact situation of the present case, more particularly in view of the settled legal position with regard to erection of Towers and laying of Electrical HT Lines. 29. Though the learned Senior Counsel also contended that even disputed questions of facts can be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India placing reliance on the decisions in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769 and State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 this Court is not inclined to agree with the same. As opined earlier and as seen from the pleadings of the both sides, the matter involves not only the disputed questions of facts, but also highly technical aspects. Further, the powers of licensee, which is rightly not questioned by the petitioner in undertaking the works of towers and laying electricity lines is dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 143 . In the said case before the Writ Court, it was inter alia urged that the erection of two towers on the mining leased out to the writ petitioner is going to render a large chunk of mining area unusable and that realignment of two towers is a better option, which would sub-serve both the competing public interests, one projected by the writ petitioner and the other by the Power Grid. Further that there is violation of Section 68 and 69 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Rules 3 and 10 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 in laying down overhead lines and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and the Division Bench while not granting the relief insofar as changing the site of erection of Towers is concerned, issued certain directions and the matter was carried by way of appeals. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to the relevant provisions of Law, allowed the appeal filed by the Power Grid inter alia holding as follows: “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 24-12-2003 exercisable under the 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. This coupled with the fact that Power Grid is treated as authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested in a telegraph authority under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of power transmission lines. As per the provisions of the 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 Telegraph Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines, applied the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity transmission lines. xxx xxx xxx 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. xxx xxx xxx 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 utilised 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.......” Therefore, the point is answered against the petitioner. Point No. 4: (4) Whether the action of the respondent-authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such the same warrants interference by this Court? 30. With reference to this point, the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the decisions relied on behalf of the respondent-authorities, there was no adjudication of the rights of the land owners vis-a-vis Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But this aspect was considered by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Sri Sai Surya Gardens (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 (4) ALD 2917. In the said case, the petitioner challenged the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act on the ground that no procedure has been followed and the respondents are acting in a high handed manner thereby causing loss to the petitioner’s property and almost depriving them from using and enjoying the property and such an action is hit by Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the said writ petition holding that “the respondent /Corporation can exercise enough power to lay Transmission Lines across the property of the petitioner, except claiming compensation the petitioner cannot validly challenge the action of the Board on the ground that it affects his valuable rights.” In the light of the above binding precedent, the point is answered against the petitioner. 31. Insofar as the other contention with reference to the Order 8 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of Law laid down therein. However, in the present case, the respondent-authorities while denying the allegations/averments in the petitioner’s affidavits had specifically asserted the relevant aspects in the rejoinder filed by respondents 1 to 5 and 7. 32. This Court in the light of the averments made in the said Rejoinder is of the view that the respondent-authorities have taken the relevant aspects into consideration and the contention contra that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration while taking a decision with regard to change of alignment, cannot be accepted. Further, there may be a justification in the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-furnishing of the material sought for, but this Court considering the undisputed factual position that more than 95% of the work is completed in the total length of 91.533 kms. except 1.51 kms. and the laying of tower in the subject matter land, is not inclined to delve much on this aspect. At this juncture, that too after spending huge expenditure of about Rs.190 Crores, the Court cannot grant any relief, much less by giving a direction to the respondent-authorities to deviate from laying the tower and line in the subject matter land of the petitioner. In fact, Section 164 r/w Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act empowers the licensee/A.P. Transco to lay the High Tension Lines and as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the owners/interested persons are only entitled for compensation for user of the land. 33. In fact, Section 164 r/w Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act empowers the licensee/A.P. Transco to lay the High Tension Lines and as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the owners/interested persons are only entitled for compensation for user of the land. 33. In K. Subrahmanyam and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/AP/0565/2021 the action of the respondents in trying to lay the Transmission Lines through the petitioner’s lands was challenged inter alia that the same is violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to A.P. Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 etc., The respondents therein filed a counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the scheme was published in A.P. Gazette dated 29.01.2015 and also in Daily News Papers, inviting objections to the proposed lines, that no objections were received from anybody, including the petitioners, that the alignment was fixed thereafter and total 99 towers were proposed for the said line, in that process, only one Tower is being erected in the petitioner’s land and almost 90 Towers of out of 99 Towers were already installed, including the line works. The learned Judge after referring to the relevant case Law, dismissed the writ petition and the same was upheld vide Orders in K. Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P. 2021 SCC Online AP 2944 [W.A. No. 303 of 2021]. 34. In W.P. No. 10953 of 2021, Palem Ram Suresh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a learned Judge dealt with the issues raised in respect of the very same Transmission Line in K. Subrahmanyam’s case referred to supra. Before the learned Judge more or less similar contentions as in the present case that Notifications were issued without particulars, thus the petitioners did not submit any objections, if the respondents lay lines directly from the sub-stations, Rajampet, it will reduce one or two poles and shorten the line, that the Tower/Lines in between 6-4 shown by the respondents are not in straight and further that the D.P.R. (Detailed Project Report) was changed to benefit some persons, that the respondent authorities have to erect 99 Towers as per D.P.R. but changed to 96 with deviations etc. were raised. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit inter alia referring to several aspects including non-filing of objections to the Notifications etc. were raised. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit inter alia referring to several aspects including non-filing of objections to the Notifications etc. It was pleaded that the revision of the Tower schedule is completely based on technical aspects, change of alignment is technically not feasible and such changes would impact other land owners and further lead to multiple litigation, that the works of Transmission Lines are in public interest. The learned Judge after considering the matter dismissed the Writ Petition and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “16. The alignment, normally finalized taking into consideration various technical aspects. Thus, change of alignment, may not technically feasible. As seen from the record the authorities had taken maximum precaution, technically, to mitigate the damage to the land of petitioner. APTRANSCO spent nearly 20 crores on the project and the project is envisaged in the interest of public meant for agriculture supply.” A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1038 of 2023 approved the decision of the learned Single Judge vide Orders dated 23.02.2024. 35. In W.A. No. 816 of 2022, A.V.K. Viswanatha Raju v. Union of India, a Division Bench of this Court vide Orders dated 09.02.2023 inter alia held as follows: “5. It is settled law that writ court should be slow in interfering with the decision taken by experts. Before proceeding to acquire land for construction of National Highways or widening thereof, a Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by experts considering the extent of land required for acquisition. Therefore, an individual cannot be allowed to raise objection that the alignment prepared by experts should be changed only for the reason that his lands will be affected by acquisition. It is not the case that the proposed alignment would cover only Government lands and it is clear that the same would affect 33 small farmers. If the lands of the writ petitioner are excluded from acquisition, other group of persons would be adversely affected. Therefore, present is not a case where this court should exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondents to change the alignment. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner and we find no reason to interfere with the same.” 36. Therefore, present is not a case where this court should exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondents to change the alignment. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner and we find no reason to interfere with the same.” 36. Though the said decision relates to laying of National Highway, the same in the opinion of this Court is applicable to cases of laying of HT Lines. 37. Further, the petitioner except seeking compensation, as per the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act or other Rules, cannot cause impediment or hindrance to the laying of High Tension Tower Lines, which are in the interest of the public at large. It may not be out of place to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in the context of laying of National Highway in Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) SCC 134 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a Land Acquisition Notification issued for a public purpose i.e. “For Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking for Bus Station.” The Hon’ble Apex Court while emphasizing the need for economic development of the country, inter alia held that Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis, the private interest. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with china economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as “Asian tigers” e.g. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognized on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernization (emphasis supplied). These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernization (emphasis supplied). These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions filed on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power or grant in stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of noncompliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say.” 38. In the light of the legal position concerning the laying of electricity lines on which reliance is placed on behalf of the respondent-authorities, this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as sought for. 39. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say.” 38. In the light of the legal position concerning the laying of electricity lines on which reliance is placed on behalf of the respondent-authorities, this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as sought for. 39. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this Order would not preclude the petitioner from claiming compensation in respect of the subject matter land/property before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with the Law. Needless to emphasize that “the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation cannot be a ground to hinder the completion of scheme” as held in Devisetty Ramaswamy’s case referred to supra. 40. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.