ORDER : VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J. 1. The issue involved in both these writ petitions pertains to shifting/ realignment of Transmission Lines and erection of the towers in the lands of the petitioners, therefore, the same are disposed of by this Common Order. For the sake of convenience, W.P. No.503 of 2024 is taken as leading case. W.P. No.503 OF 2024 2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: ?To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 5 in proposing to lay 220 KV line and erect towers over the lands of the petitioners situated in Sy Nos.34, 71/1, 73/3, 73/4, 78/6, 78/6/A, 79/2, 93/6, 86, 93/7, of Edulamaddali Village Peddaparupudi Krishna District and Sy Nos.81/2, 81/3, 86, 87, 86, 88 of Guruvindagunta Peddaparupudi Krishna District and Sy Nos.26/1, 77, 80/1, 80/3, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3, 85/4, 86, 87/2, 88/1A, 88/1B, 88/2, 90/3, 96/1, 96/2, 124/1, 149/4, 150/3, 197/7A, 231/2, 246/1, 247/1, 280, 283/1, 284/1, 286/1 of Peddaparupudi Krishna District for upgrading the existing grid and lines contrary to the original alignment instead of laying line adjacent to existing line proposing to lay new line covering the residential locality layouts human and animal in habitation water bites railway tracks in CRDA specified master plan and also not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 10.04.2023, 12.04.2023 & on 15.04.2023 is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents not to erect lay / towers for upgradation 220 KV lines covering the lands of the petitioners situated in Sy Nos.34, 71/1, 73/3, 73/4, 78/6, 78/6/A, 79/2, 93/6, 86, 93/7, of Edulamaddali Village Peddaparupudi Krishna District and Sy Nos.81/2, 81/3, 86, 87, 86, 88 of Guruvindagunta Peddaparupudi Krishna District and Sy Nos.26/1, 77, 80/1, 80/3, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3, 85/4, 86, 87/2, 88/1A, 88/1B, 88/2, 90/3, 96/1, 96/2, 124/1, 149/4, 150/3, 197/7A, 231/2, 246/1, 247/1, 280, 283/1, 284/1, 286/1 of Peddaparupudi Krishna District of Peddaparupudi Krishna District contrary to the existing alignment." 3. The petitioners are owners of agricultural lands, relying solely on agriculture for their livelihood. An existing 220/134 KV power line already passes through their lands, covering several villages from Gunadala to Old Machilipatnam. The petitioners are owners of agricultural lands, relying solely on agriculture for their livelihood. An existing 220/134 KV power line already passes through their lands, covering several villages from Gunadala to Old Machilipatnam. Within 1 km of this line, the respondents are proposing to lay a new 220 KV line by erecting towers through the petitioners’ villages viz., Maheshwarapuram, Guruvindagunta, Peddaparapudi, Edulamaddi, impacting residential zones, schools, and cultivated lands. Initially, the proposed line was aligned adjacent to the existing one, as part of a project to upgrade the grid. There is sufficient space near the current infrastructure, and a separate line is unnecessary for capacity enhancement. The petitioners later came to know that the original alignment, which ran beside the existing line, was altered, allegedly no specific particulars to avoid land owned by a ruling party politician. The new alignment passes through the villages of Lingavaram, Jonnapudi, Maheshwarapuram, Guruvindagunta, Peddaparapudi, Edulamaddali, Seepudi, and Elamarru. This diversion unnecessarily increases the project length by 22 km, imposing a substantial cost on the State exchequer, while an alternative 3 km route would suffice. Despite repeated requests by the petitioners to retain the original alignment or upgrade the existing line, the respondents conducted land surveys highhandedly, without considering the requests submitted by the petitioners and other villagers and they are now preparing to erect towers. Aggrieved by this arbitrary and high-handed action, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from laying the new line through their lands situated at villages as mentioned above. 4. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations of the petitioners. The main contentions of the respondents are as follows: a. This writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. b. Any contract of public service should not be interfered lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. c. Respondents can lay down the transmission towers and the same being Infrastructure Project, laying in the ultimate interest of public at the cost of public company, the same cannot be interfered. d. A Preliminary and Detailed survey was conducted by duly following the departmental procedures in vogue and avoiding residential areas and the concerned detailed profiles and tower schedules were approved. d. A Preliminary and Detailed survey was conducted by duly following the departmental procedures in vogue and avoiding residential areas and the concerned detailed profiles and tower schedules were approved. The execution of the line is essentially required to meet the load demand of surrounding areas of Gudivada and it is being constructed purely for public utility purpose only. e. Vide G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 07.10.2003, the Government has conferred powers of Telegraph Authority upon APTRANSCO for placing electric supply lines or electric sub-stations for transmission of electricity in the State. Therefore, by virtue of Section 164 of Electricity Act and G.O.Ms.No.115, APTRANSCO being the licensee can invoke powers of Telegraph Authority under Telegraph Act, 1885. f. Section 10 of Telegraph Act stipulates that, the telegraph authority may from time to time, place and maintain a line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property and according to Section 10(4), in case of any damage, it shall pay full compensation to all the persons interested for any damaged sustained by them. g. The damages are determined as per G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017 and compensation towards land Diminution is determined as 100% of basic value, but in this case, District Collector issued proceedings, directing to pay compensation @ 2.5 times of basic value in excess to the amount stipulated in G.O.Rt.No.83. h. Respondents are proposing 220 KV towers in the lands of 14 petitioners out of 25 petitioners. Towers are erecting in 16 survey numbers out of 41 survey numbers and appropriate compensation will be paid to the effected land owners according to the terms of G.O.Ms.No.83, as determined by the District Collector. i. There is no 220 KV line as alleged passing through the lands covered in various villages from Gunadala to old Machilipatnam Village (Vanapamula, Dentakuru, Edulamalli, Pamuru). There are two 132 KV lines. (1) 132 KV Gudivada – Pamarru Line (2) 132 KV Kanumolu – Pamarru Line is passing from Gudivada to Pamarru. j. Initially, 220 KV line was proposed in the existing corridor of 132 KV Gudivada – Pamarru line with upgradation of existing of 132 KV Pamarru substation to 220 KV level. Later, as per power requirement of 220 KV Gudivada Substation, proposed new line corridor from 400 KV substation Elamarru. j. Initially, 220 KV line was proposed in the existing corridor of 132 KV Gudivada – Pamarru line with upgradation of existing of 132 KV Pamarru substation to 220 KV level. Later, as per power requirement of 220 KV Gudivada Substation, proposed new line corridor from 400 KV substation Elamarru. Upgradation of 220 KV level proposed to 132 KV Pedana Switching station, instead of 132 KV Pamarru Substation, the 220 KV line was proposed for meeting load demand existing 220 KV, as such it as not possible to upgrade existing 132 KV line to 220 KV level. Hence, the representations of the petitioners were not considered. k. Technical feasibility was issued to new 220 KV SS Pedana, instead of upgradation of 132 KV Pamarru to 220 KV level, thereby, 220 KV line for Gudivada Akiveedu line is to be laid in the new corridor instead of initially proposed 132 KV Gudivada Pamarru SC line corridor. Hence, shortest route was approved duly avoiding residential areas commercial areas and considering agricultural lands. 5. Respondent Nos.4 & 5 did not file their counter affidavits. 6. During hearing, Sri M. Manoj, learned counsel appearing for Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.503 of 2024 and Ms. Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel appearing in W.P.No.4469 of 2024 would submit that, the respondents herein without following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, framed by virtue of powers conferred under Section 176 (2) (e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, without obtaining prior sanction of the owners/occupiers of the subject land are proposing to lay transmission lines through the lands of the petitioners, which is in violation of Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the constitution of India. Though the petitioner submitted representations and brought to the notice of the respondents, no consent was obtained by the licensee, as required and no notices were issued so far and no public notification was also issued, as contemplated. Even after receipt of representations, the same was not considered within the time as prescribed. It is further contended that the respondents authorities neither complied the procedure as mandated under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also Section 10(d) of the Telegraphic Act, 1995, while notifying affected land owners and their extent of land for addressing their objections. Even after receipt of representations, the same was not considered within the time as prescribed. It is further contended that the respondents authorities neither complied the procedure as mandated under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also Section 10(d) of the Telegraphic Act, 1995, while notifying affected land owners and their extent of land for addressing their objections. Without adopting the procedure as contemplated under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, which empowers the appropriate government to proceed further as per Section 10(d) of the Telegraphic Act, the respondents have completed the procedure empowering the licensee to proceed under Section 10(d) of the Telegraphic Act. Therefore, without such authority, the licensee cannot proceed further on the premise of right of way granted under Section 10(d) of the Telegraphic Act. In support of his contention with regard to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of State of Telangana in T. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of Telangana , W.P.No.4503 & 5873 of 2019 dated 22.04.2019 7. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the initial alignment was laid based on existing 220 KV line, but contrary to the same, to protect the land of political person, entire alignment was changed now and proposed to lay the line covering the present villages, which is contrary to Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007. Moreover, the proposed alignment is contemplated through approved layout residential localities and instead of upgrading the existing line, laying separate line at the cost of public exchequer is also contrary to the public interest. Further, heavy high tension lines i.e. 220 KV towers cannot be erected at the residential zones/commercial areas or through approved layouts since it will affect the human and animal life. But, without considering the same, the respondents have proposed the present alignment contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007. It is further contended that, without considering the objections/representations submitted by the petitioners, as contemplated under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, proceeding further and laying towers without paying compensation is contrary to the procedure and the respondents cannot carry on laying of transmission lines, thereby Notification dated 14.03.2023 is liable to be set-aside. 8. It is further contended that, without considering the objections/representations submitted by the petitioners, as contemplated under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, proceeding further and laying towers without paying compensation is contrary to the procedure and the respondents cannot carry on laying of transmission lines, thereby Notification dated 14.03.2023 is liable to be set-aside. 8. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State and learned Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO submits that, the allegations of petitioners that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 is not true and far away from the record. The judgment of the High Court of Telangana in T. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of Telangana (referred above) was overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd 2017 5 SCC 143 holding that Rule 3 serves merely as a supplement to Section 164 of the Electricity Act, which itself provides essential procedural safeguards to landowners. It is further submitted that, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the first respondent is empowered to confer upon the second respondent the authority to proceed with the laying of transmission lines, particularly of 132/220 KV and above, by granting the authority of Right of Way, as envisaged under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is a well-established principle of law that, under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, licensees or power utilities, acting as telegraphic authorities, are legally entitled to lay transmission lines with the right of way. This entitlement, however, is subject to the obligation of compensating landowners for any damage caused, limited to the extent of land occupied by each transmission tower. The other contention of the petitioner that, to benefit leader of party in power, the new alignment way is proposed lacks merits, in the absence of any specific particulars of land and name of leader. The foremost contention of the petitioner that the respondents have not complied the procedure under Rule 3 of License Rules, 2007, no prior notice was issued, no prior consent was obtained from the petitioners and representations or objections which were submitted were cosndiered nor replied by passing any order, are contrary to the facts and law. In compliance of Rule 3, the respondents duly considered and disposed of the same. In compliance of Rule 3, the respondents duly considered and disposed of the same. more so, issuance of prior notice and obtaining prior consent and procedures under Rule 3 are not mandatory in nature. They are only supplemental in nature due to the power of ?Right of Way" conferred upon the 2 nd respondent. Further, all these contentions were also duly considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment stated supra. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General for the State and learned Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO and perused the material available on record. 10. The contention advanced by the petitioners that instead of laying a new transmission line, the respondents ought to upgrade the existing 220 KV line to minimize the financial burden on the public exchequer is found to be factually untenable. The material on record clearly establishes that the transmission lines currently in existence are of 132 KV capacity, and not 220 KV as put forth by the petitioners. Furthermore, the proposal for the 220 KV Gudivada–Akiveedu transmission line has been initiated to overcome the prevailing shortfall in electricity supply in the concerned region. This action falls within the ambit of a public purpose, and on this ground, the Court finds no merit in the contention urged by the petitioners, as such, the contention raised by the leaned counsel for the petitioners is rejected. 11. It is observed that the proposed alignment of the transmission line was finalized only after conducting both preliminary and detailed surveys, strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statutory provisions. In finalizing the alignment, due care was taken to avoid residential and commercial areas, and to minimize damage and hardship to landowners, while also considering technical feasibility. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the respondents are proceeding with the laying of the transmission line without payment of proper compensation is also found to be factually incorrect. It is evident from the record that the District Collector, by proceedings dated 29.11.2023, after due consideration of the claims of affected landowners, has determined compensation. The compensation has been fixed at 250 times the basic value or market value of the land occupied by each transmission tower, notwithstanding with the terms of G.O.Rt.No.83, dated 20.06.2017, provides for compensation only at market value. The compensation has been fixed at 250 times the basic value or market value of the land occupied by each transmission tower, notwithstanding with the terms of G.O.Rt.No.83, dated 20.06.2017, provides for compensation only at market value. This enhanced compensation has been awarded in the interest of farmers and affected landowners. 13. In the present case, it is evident that the first respondent has conferred powers upon the second respondent under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 115, dated 07.10.2003, thereby the respondent corporation was authorized to exercise power of right of way in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In view of the above, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are not conferred with the powers to exercise the ?Right of Way" under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act is misconceived and no longer res integra. 14. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 deals with the power for Telegraph Authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts and according to sub-section (d) says that, 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) and shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them. 15. Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project. For better appreciation, Section 20A is extracted hereunder: 20A. Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project.—(1) No injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such infrastructure project. (2) The Central Government may, depending upon the requirement for development of infrastructure rojects, and if it considers necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule relating to any Category of projects or Infrastructure Sub-Sectors. (2) The Central Government may, depending upon the requirement for development of infrastructure rojects, and if it considers necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule relating to any Category of projects or Infrastructure Sub-Sectors. (3) Every notification issued under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that notification. 16. As per the Schedule annexed to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, under the category of "Energy", various infrastructure sub-sectors have been specifically classified. viz (a) Electricity Generation, (b) Electricity Transmission, (c) Electricity Distribution, (d) Oil Pipelines, (e) Oil/Gas/Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Storage Facilities (including strategic storage of crude oil), and (f) Gas Pipelines (including City Gas Distribution Networks). This classification clearly indicates that electricity transmission is recognized as a vital infrastructure sub-sector, further reinforcing the public importance of such projects. 17. Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, stipulates that, an injunction cannot be granted if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project. 18. On conjoint reading of Section 20A, the Schedule annexed to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Energy Transmission falls under the category of infrastructure project and therefore, contract of public service should not be interfered with and there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. The said proposition of law was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. N.G. Projects Limited vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain , Civil Appeal Nol.1846 of 2022 . Therefore, the respondents can lay the transmission towers, since the same being the Infrastructure Project laying in the ultimate interest of the public at the cost of public company. 19. Furthermore, damages determined as per G.O.Rt.No.83 Energy, Infrastructure Investment (Pr.II.A2) Department dated 20.06.2017 are adopted by APTRANSCO vide T.O.O (Addl.Secy.Per) Ms.No.511 dated 07.08.2017 and compensation towards land diminution value is determined as 100% of basic value. In the present case, compensation towards land diminution value is determined as 100%, but the District Collector issued proceedings, directing to pay compensation @ 250% of basic value in excess to the amount stipulated in G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017, considering requests of petitioner and other landholders and to award more benefit, as such, the respondents followed every procedure by considering the objections/representations of the petitioners and issued paper publication and notification in official gazette, as contemplated under the scheme of act. In such a case, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated, more particularly, Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007, is contrary to the facts. Therefore, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected, thereby, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, W.P.No.503 of 2024 is dismissed. No costs. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. W.P.No.4469 of 2024 22. In view of my detailed discussion in W.P.No.503 of 2024, W.P.No.4469 of 2024 is also dismissed. No costs. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.