JUDGMENT : S.M.Subramaniam, J. Under assail is the order dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.17186 of 2015. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District has instituted the present Intra Court Appeal mainly on the ground that compensation as admissible under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is to be paid whenever high-tension electric line is commissioned in private properties. In respect of the properties belongs to the 1st respondent, District Collector in proceedings dated 14.03.2014 recorded the findings which reads as under: “He has further stated that as per safety norms, there should not be any structures under the EHT lines. When the above one feeder charges, due to the presence of the above building within the induction limit, the line will either trip or power will pass through the building endangering to the lives moving there. It is further stated that the building is an unauthorized structure without proper approval. For that notices have been served to the building owner to demolish the building and also to the local body concerned to arrange for demolition of the structure vide their letter dated 30.07.2013 and 01.10.2013. But, the building has not been demolished yet and it was constructed with an ulterior motive to blocking the said EHT line passing through the land. It seems that erection of EHT line in the above said land was completed, but the generation of power is pending due to building raised underneath the EHT line. The Superintendent Engineer has further stated that as North Chennai Thermal power station stage II is set to start generation of full capacity of 1200 MW shortly, the above one feeder is programmed to be energized by the month end. Hence he has requested to arrange for demolish the building urgently to energize the feeder. I carefully examined the averments made by the Superintendent of Engineer, General construction Circle-II, Chennial-32 with connected records. (1) 100% erection of EHT line had already been completed on the said land. (2) Adjacent three feeders have already been energized, which is at present evacuating around 900 MW power from North Chennai Thermal power station stage II. (3) This one feeder could not be energized due to construction of an unauthorized building raised exactly underneath the feeders. (4) The development of efficient power transmission net work throughout the Country is more important for the welfare of the people and the nation. (3) This one feeder could not be energized due to construction of an unauthorized building raised exactly underneath the feeders. (4) The development of efficient power transmission net work throughout the Country is more important for the welfare of the people and the nation. (5) The above one feeder is programmed to be energized shortly to generate full capacity of 1200 MW from North Chennai Thermal power station stage II. (6) Further delay in completing the project will have a strong bearing on the public exchequer and will not be in the interest of the public. (7) It seems that the building was constructed with an ulterior motive to blocking the said EHT line passing through the land. As per the provision of section 68(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is clearly stated that, “Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or where any structure or other object which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead line subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or authority specified by the Appropriate Government may, on the application of the licensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt with as he or it thinks fit” and Rule 79 to 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, it is clearly states about the, building clearance of the high voltage lines.” 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that despite a Civil Court decree, the 1st respondent breached an undertaking not to obstruct the installation of high-tension electric wires in the locality by constructing unauthorized structures. These unauthorised constructions are made in order to obstruct the instillation of high- tension poles and wires by the corporation. Therefore, the Collector removed the unauthorised constructions by following the due procedures. 4. The writ petition has been filed by the 1st respondent seeking exemplary damages. The Writ Court has made an observation stating that the erection of high-tension electricity line installation in the land would diminish the value of the property. However, in such public projects, larger public interest should be taken into consideration by the Courts. 4. The writ petition has been filed by the 1st respondent seeking exemplary damages. The Writ Court has made an observation stating that the erection of high-tension electricity line installation in the land would diminish the value of the property. However, in such public projects, larger public interest should be taken into consideration by the Courts. With reference to the grievances of the individual compensation as admissible under the Act is to be paid by following the due procedures. 5. In the present case, the 1st respondent has not sought for the relief to pay the compensation as admissible under the Indian Telegraph Act. But he made a request for grant of exemplary damage. When the competent authorities acted lawfully and within their powers for implementing the public projects, question of granting exemplary damages would not arise, unless it is established that such authorities exceeded their power or caused damages which is otherwise impermissible under law. 6. In the present case, the findings of the Collector in proceeding dated 14.03.2014 would reveal that the 1st respondent constructed unauthorised structures that obstructed the instillation of high-tension electric wire. Consequently, demolition was carried out in accordance with law. The authorities' actions were lawful and followed procedures as contemplated. Thus, the observation made by the Writ Court that the petitioner is entitled for exemplary damages is not in consonance with the established legal principles. Consequently, the impugned writ order stands set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.