{"id":167642,"date":"2010-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-27T22:58:37","modified_gmt":"2019-01-27T17:28:37","slug":"appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2813\/2010\t 1\/ 37\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2813 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2814 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n \n \n======================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    \n\t\t\tYES                  \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ? YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n======================================\n\n\n \n\nMANOJBHAI\nDASRATHBHAI PATEL & ANR\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPOWER\nGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD & ORS\n \n\n======================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nRA MISHRA for Petitioners \nMR MIHIR JOSHI WITH SUNIL S JOSHI for\nRespondent Nos. 1 & 2 \nRESPONDENT NO. 3 IS SERVED \nMR NIKUNT\nRAVAL, AGRP for Respondent\nNo.4 \n====================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1\t\tSince
\ncommon issue is involved  in both these petitions, both the petitions
\nare being heard  and disposed of together by this common judgment and
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
2\t\tSpecial
\nCivil Application No.  2813 of 2010  is filed by two petitioners.
\nThe petitioner No.1 is  a national and citizen of India whereas  the
\npetitioner No.2 is   a Trust  registered under the Bombay Public
\nTrust Act with the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat, for the  object of
\nimparting education and other similar activities.  The petitioner
\nNo.1 is the owner and occupier of   Block No. 1623  of moje   Village
\n Jetalpur, Taluka -Daskroi and District and Sub-District  Ahmedabad,
\nwhereas  land bearing  Block No. 1596, is owned and occupied by  the
\npetitioner No.2   Trust of moje Village Jetalpur, Taluka
\nDaskroi, District & Sub-District   Ahmedabad, and  both the
\nlands of the petitioners are situated  just opposite to each other
\nacross the Highway, called National Highway No.8.\n<\/p>\n
3\t\tThe
\npetitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2814 of  2010 is also a
\npublic trust, registered with  the  Charity Commissioner, Gujarat.
\nThe land  bearing Block Nos. 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059,
\n1065, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1066 and 1067 of moje
\n Village Jetalpur, Taluka   Daskroi, District and Sub-District  –
\nAhmedabad and the land  in question bearing  Block No. 1593,  which
\nis  situated just adjoining,   are owned and occupied  by the said
\nTrust. In the  said land,  the Trust is running  Primary,  Secondary
\nand Higher Secondary Schools.  Over and above  the schools in the
\nsaid premises, there are several colleges run and managed by the said
\nTrust, namely,  B.Ed., P.T.C.,   Government Hospital which is run and
\nmanaged by the Trust situated in the said plots and one Degree
\nEngineering College.  Thus, it is an educational campus  created by
\nthe Trust.\n<\/p>\n
4\t\tIn
\nboth these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and
\nsetting aside the impugned decision of Respondent  No.4 dated
\n22.02.2010 passed on the application made by Respondent No.1
\nCompany,  dated 21.12.2009  and thereby quashing and setting aside
\nthe impugned decision of laying High Tension Power Lines  passing
\nthrough the lands of the petitioners and thereby permanently
\nrestraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2  from laying down  said High
\nTension Power Lines by erecting Towers  on the land  belonged to the
\npetitioners and further be pleased to direct the concerned
\nrespondents to lay the High Tension Power Lines by shifting the same
\nto Karaba land of the Government, which is available and is situated
\nnearby to the lands belonged to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
5\t\tThis
\nCourt has issued Notice to the  Respondents returnable on 10th
\n of March, 2010 and it was directed  that   respondent shall not
\nenter  the land of the petitioners till the next date of hearing. The
\nsaid interim relief was continued from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
6\t\tIt
\nis the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2   are
\nthe  State  within the meaning of Article  12 of the Constitution
\nof India.   The respondent No.3 is appointed as contractor  to lay
\ndown the disputed High Tension Power Lines, passing through
\nJetalpur area, where  the land owned and occupied by the petitioners
\nare located, to erect  electric towers.  The Respondent No.4   is the
\nState Authority,  who permitted respondents  to carry on  the work of
\nlaying down  High Tension Power Lines.  It is also the case of the
\npetitioners that  somewhere  in the month of July, 2009,  Officers of
\n respondent No.1 along with  Surveyor  and Engineers  of respondent
\nNo.1 company , other officers  and Lineman of respondent No.3 -one
\nDaulatbhai Dabhi  have personally visited the lands of the
\npetitioners  and appraised  the petitioners regarding the project
\ncontemplated by the respondents to lay High  Tension Power Lines
\npassing through their lands  and have collected soil sample  of the
\nland. They have informed that if the petitioners have any objection
\nfor laying of High Tension Power Lines passing through their lands
\nby erecting Electric Towers,  they may do so by   writing proper
\napplication addressed to respondent No.2.     The petitioners
\nthereafter inquired into the office of Collector   respondent No.4
\nand learnt that  several other  farmers have also raised  their
\nobjections against laying  of High Tension Power  Lines  from
\nprivate  property,  whereas  the original project was to  erect  400
\nKV  Tower Station at Lamba  Tekra, which is popularly known as
\n`Pirana   Dahej-Jetalpur’  and as per the original plan, said High
\nTension  Power Lines was to  be laid  on Vijol  – Lamba road parallel
\nto the said road, so that  no private land is affected.  However,
\nsaid plan appears to have been changed and now it appears that
\nrespondents have decided to lay High Tension Power Lines  through
\nprivate lands right from village  Chausar leading towards village
\nJetalpur, which comprised of various private lands, including that of
\nthe  petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
7\t\tIt
\nis also the the case of the petitioners that since  somewhere  in the
\nmonth of July, 2009, Officers of the respondents visited   at the
\nlands   of the petitioners, the petitioners  made a representation
\ndated  24.09.2009 addressed to respondent No.2, inter alia,  pointing
\nout  in  detail to  lay High Tension Power Lines   from alternative
\nsite   and not from the   private lands  of the petitioners  and
\nother similarly situated persons, particularly, in view of the fact
\nthat, recently,  said lands have been declared as `Commercial  Zone’
\nby Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and finalization of Town
\nPlanning Scheme is under consideration of the  Government  which will
\nbe  shortly finalized   and, therefore,  if such a huge power supply
\nline  is laid on the private lands of the petitioners and other such
\naffected persons having  commercial value,   which would amount to
\ndepriving the petitioners   without authority of law  and without
\nfollowing    any procedure known to law,  particularly, when
\nalternative site is available for laying   High Tension Power Lines,
\nwhich would strike the balance   and would  not affect any  private
\nproperty.   It would  also serve the purpose of  respondents and they
\nwould not be put to any inconvenience  in continuing with their
\nproject of laying  High Tension Power Lines.\n<\/p>\n
8\t\tIt
\nis the case of the petitioners that  the petitioners have made
\nseveral representations to the respondent authorities, but no action
\nwas taken by them with regard to the petitioners grievance.   The
\npetitioners have earlier preferred a petition, being Special Civil
\nApplication No. 10916 of 2009 wherein this Court has passed a common
\norder on 18.12.2009 issuing following directions:\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trespondent company shall   approach  the  respondent No.4
\n\tDistrict Magistrate within a period of  one week from today.\n<\/p>\n
After
\n\tsuch  an application is moved, it will be open to the petitioners to
\n\traise contentions  before the respondent No.4   District
\n\tMagistrate, which will be considered in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
If
\n\tthe application is moved by the respondent company within a period
\n\tof one week,   the respondent No.1 shall hear and decide the
\n\tapplication within a period of  eight weeks  from the date of
\n\treceipt of application after due consideration  of the  objections
\n\tof the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tcourt has not entered into the merits of the matter and, therefore,
\n\t the respondent No.4 may not be influenced  by the order of this
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis also   clarified that till the issue is  decided by the
\n\trespondent No.4,  the field of the petitioners shall not be  entered
\n\tinto by the respondent company.\n<\/p>\n
9\t\tPursuant
\nto the  common Order passed by this  Court on 18.12.2009,   the
\nrespondent No.1 Company approached  the respondent No.4  by
\napplication dated  21.12.2009, wherein it was prayed that,  in the
\nexercise of  the powers  under Section  16 of the  Telegraph Act,
\n1885,   the Power Grid  may kindly be permitted to proceed ahead with
\nthe laying of   transmission line from the lands of the objectors
\nsituated  in village Jetalpur at the earliest. The petitioners filed
\ntheir objections   before the respondent No.4 on 22.02.2010, giving
\ndetails and elaborate reasons and also  legal grounds  stating that
\nthe action of the  respondent  No.1 Company   is totally  illegal,
\narbitrary, violative of principle of natural justice and  without any
\n application of mind.  The respondent No.4, while deciding and
\npassing the impugned order on the application of the Respondent No.1
\ncompany,  has not given proper opportunity of hearing  to the
\npetitioners as provided under Section 171 of the Electricity Act,
\n2003, under  which no notice was issued to the  petitioners. The
\nobjections  as directed by this Court  were filed  by the petitioners
\nand still no proper hearing was given by the  respondent No.4 while
\npassing the impugned order. It is also the grievance of the
\npetitioners that  the respondent No.4 has not given any reasons in
\nhis order and by  cryptic order, rejected the objections raised by
\nthe petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
10\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n
It is this order of respondent No.4   which is under challenge  in
\nthe present petitions.\n<\/p>\n
11\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
R.K. Mishra, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, in both
\nthese petitions, has submitted that the respondent No. 4  has not
\ncalled  the petitioners   personally  to hear them by issuing  Notice
\nunder Section  171 of the  Electricity Act.  The most important thing
\nabout damage which the electricity lines  are causing to the effect
\nof the petitioners,   which are  specifically stated  in  the report
\nsubmitted by the petitioners before the Respondent No.4 along with
\ntheir objections.   The said  report dated 08.04.2010 prepared by Dr.
\nNeil  is on the subject of `Evidence that Electromagnetic Fields
\nfrom high voltage power lines and in buildings, are hazardous to
\nhuman health, especially to young children’.   He opined in the
\nreport that the power lines should not be  passed through the lands
\nwhere the schools are situated and human beings are residing  and the
\ndamages   which the power lines  would be caused  are so much
\nirreparable  that in long term  the children  and the human beings
\nresiding over the area will not be able to recover from the damages
\ndue to the power lines  which are passing over them.   Mr. Mishra has
\nfurther submitted that the  respondent No.4   without considering the
\nobjections, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
\npetitioners,  even without issuing Notice to the petitioners for
\nhearing them, without application of mind and against the principle
\nof natural justice, vide impugned  Order dated  22.02.2010,
\ndecided the application of the respondent No.1  to the detriment of
\nthe petitioners,  once again rising cause of action to approach  this
\nHon’ble Court by way of the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
11.1\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mishra further invited   attention of this Court   to Rule- 3 of the
\nWorks of Licensees Rules, 2006. The bare reading of  Rule-3 of the
\nWorks of Licensees Rule, 2006,  makes it clear that, prior to  laying
\nof a High Tension Power grid  Line,  the consent of the owner and
\noccupier of the building\/land is a condition precedent.  The
\nrespondents have not  obtained any consent of the petitioners.
\nRight from  the beginning, the petitioners have objected to   laying
\nof such line  for various reasons stated in the objections  raised by
\nthe petitioners   before the District Magistrate.  Once, consent is
\nnot given by an occupier  of the building\/land, it is incumbent upon
\nthe concerned  respondent    to obtain permission in writing from the
\nDistrict Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other
\nOfficer authorized by the State Government  in this behalf.   He has
\nfurther submitted that  even at the time of issuance of Notification
\nin the Gazette, prescribing the procedure  for laying such High
\nTension Power  Grid Line,  at various places including for  present
\nproject,  wherein one of the  conditions specifically  provides that
\nthe above authorization  is subject to compliance  by the Power Grid
\nto the requirement  of the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and
\nthe Rules made thereunder.  He has further submitted that  the
\nrespondents should either the lay out plan by  making  suitable
\nchanges  so as to avoid the possible damage  apprehended  by the
\npetitioners or to give full compensation prior to laying of  lines
\nbecause  the land in question is a commercial zone declared by AUDA
\nin 2002   and without following the procedure as contemplated  under
\nthe Rules,  the respondent No.1  cannot continue   with the work
\ncontemplated by them.\n<\/p>\n
11.2
\nMr. Mishra further submitted that  the project  in question   is a
\nvery huge project as contemplated  and for the said purpose   huge
\npoles are required to be erected by providing  considerable  huge
\nfoundation  of RCC   structure   on the land belonging  to the
\npetitioners.  As a matter of fact,  when this fact came to be known
\nto the present petitioners  and other people, the panchayat, on
\nbehalf of the  village people,    approached the respondent No.1
\nauthority   to suitably modify  the route  for lying such a High
\nTension Line  as contemplated by the respondent No.1  and even
\nsuggested  alternative route  where a Government kharaba land facing
\nparallel to the  contemplated site  of respondent No.1  to lay High
\nTension Line  right from village Chausar  till village  Jetalpur, and
\nif such a  High Tension Line is laid on Government Kharaba land, it
\nwould  not affect any of the private land of petitioners and other
\nfarmers  of village Jetalpur.   However,  the respondent No.1
\nremained adamant without any justification and, hence, the
\npetitioners constrained to approach  this Court for  appropriate
\nrelief.\n<\/p>\n
11.3\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mishra further submitted that  merely  because  the respondent No.1
\nis a high profile  Government   Company, cannot claim as a matter of
\nright as if they are possessing the licence  to carry out the  work
\nby laying High Tension Power grid Line through the private property
\nof the petitioners.  Mr. Mishra in support of his submission  has
\nrelied upon a decision of the   Kerala High Court in the case of
\nVALSAMMA THOMA   vs.  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
\nas reported in  AIR 1998 (Ker.)  124, wherein  it is observed that
\nthe District Magistrate has to  exercise  its discretion
\njudiciously.  He has to pass the order under Section 16(1) of the
\nTelegraph Act, after hearing  the parties after taking such evidence
\nas is required  with regard to the objections raised.  The order
\npassed by the court should be  a speaking  order. The order should
\nreflect the objections raised by the parties  and the
\nreasons  given by the  Magistrate  for accepting  or rejecting the
\nsame.  The order should also reflect the materials  relied on by the
\nDistrict Magistrate for arriving at  the conclusion.  If the
\ndiscretion   is exercised by the District  Magistrate  as above, then
\nunless it is shown that  the findings  are perverse  or that the
\nproceedings   are vitiated by mala fides,  this Court will not be
\njustified  in interfering  with such orders.  This Court  will not be
\njustified  in substituting  its own  opinion. It is also  worth
\nbearing in mind   that this Court   has not got   technical
\nexpertise and will be  slow to interfere   with such matters.\n<\/p>\n
11.4\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mishra  submitted that  the above procedures  laid down by the Kerala
\nHigh Court  have not been followed by the  respondent No.4.  The
\nimpugned order was not  served upon the petitioners  in time with a
\nview to see that the same  cannot be challenged   by the petitioners.
\n  The respondent  No.4  was expected to consider the objections
\nraised by the petitioners with respect to exploring  the  possibility
\n of alternative  site to lay  High Tension Power Lines   or to  fix
\ncompensation in respect of the land considering the site situation.
\nHowever, the respondent No.4  has concluded the whole issue  by
\nstating that since the work in question involves  public interest and
\nnational interest and private interest should suffer and  sacrifice.
\nSuch a ruthless and insensitive approach  adopted by  the respondent
\nNo.4  is absolutely   arbitrary,  illegal  and violative of
\nprinciples of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
11.5\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mishra, therefore, submitted that  the impugned order passed
\nby the  respondent No.4  cannot be sustained on any grounds and
\ndeserves to be   quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
12\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
 Mihir  Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing with Mr. Sunil S.
\nJoshi for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Nikunt Raval,   learned
\nAssistant  Government Pleader for the respondent No.4 were heard<\/p>\n
13\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mihir Joshi has submitted that the respondent No.1   i.e. M\/s Power
\nGird Corporation of India  Limited is a Government Company,
\nregistered under the provisions of the  Companies Act, 1956 and a
\nlicensee engaged in the business of Inter-State  transmission of
\nelectricity under the Electricity Act, 2003.   The Respondent No.1 is
\na premium  Central Government Organization, mainly engaged in
\nestablishment  and operation of Regional and National Power Girds, to
\nfacilitate transfer of  power within and across the regions. The
\nrespondent No.1 was  specified    as Central Transmission  Utility of
\nthis country under the Electricity Act, 1910 and it is again notified
\n as such after coming into force of Electricity Act, 2003.  The
\nrespondent has established  a sub-station  at Dehgam, inter alia,
\nwith a view to evacuate the power  generated by Gandhar Gas Power
\nProject-II of the National Thermal Power Corporation of India Limited
\nin order to develop an integrated and efficient  power transmission
\nsystem network   in the country.\n<\/p>\n
13.1\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi  further submitted that Ahmedabad is a major load  centre in
\nthe northern part of Gujarat.  To meet the growing power requirement
\nof this area, a scheme i.e. Western Region  System Strengthening
\nScheme-VI, which, inter alia,  included  development of a new 400\/220
\nKV Sub-station with 630 MVA  capacity  at Pirana  near Ahmedabad, was
\nproposed and   discussed in the 25th
\nmeeting of the Standing Committee  on Power System Planning in
\nWestern Region, held on  30th
\nof September,  2006  at CEA, New Delhi.  In order to facilitate
\npower supply (injection) at Pirana  KV, direct interconnection
\nbetween Pirana  and Dehgam
\n(existing) Grid Sub-station  through a double circuit   line was
\nagreed in the said meeting.  Further, to improve reliability in
\nsupply,  the Pirana  Sub-station would be required to be connected
\nwith Sugen (1148 MW)  generation project of M\/s  Torrent Power
\nGeneration Limited through a  400 KV  D\/C line.  In this way, Pirana
\nwould be directly  connected with the Grid  at one side and
\ngeneration project at another  side, to ensure  reliability  of
\nsupply.  In addition, establishment   of Pirana  Sub-station    would
\nfacilitate   the long term  requirement  in this
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
13.2
\n Mr. Joshi further submitted that the Board of Directors of Power
\nGrid,  in exercise of powers   delegated to it by the Government of
\nIndia  through its  O.M. No. 11\/36\/97-FIN dated October 09, 1997
\n(modified  subsequently   through O.M. No. 18(24)\/2003-GM-GL.65 dated
\nAugust 5, 2005 from Department  of Public Enterprises, Ministry of
\nHeavy Industries and Public   Enterprises), have  accorded approval
\nfor Western Region  System Strengthening    Scheme-VI, in its 205th
\n meeting  held on January  30, 2008. The said project involves  the
\nestablishment of transmission   line  i.e.   Dehgam-Pirana    400 KV,
\n 2 x 315 MVA  Sub-station   at Pirana.   The estimated  costs of the
\nsaid project is  Rs. 340.72 crores   and the same is   scheduled to
\nbe commissioned    within 33 months from the date  of investment
\napproval.\n<\/p>\n
13.3\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
\tJoshi further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of
\n\tPower,  has granted  prior approval to the respondent No.1 under
\n\tSection 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for the installation of
\n\toverhead   lines under  Western Region  System Strengthening
\n\tScheme-VI  by an order dated 08th
\n\tof February, 2007, and the said  approval is granted subject to the
\n\tfollowing conditions:\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\timplementing agency  will commence  construction  of the project
\n\twithin  3 years, unless  this term is extended by the Ministry of
\n\tPower.\n<\/p>\n
Ministry
\n\tof Power may withdraw  the approval before the expiry of the period
\n\tof 03 years  after giving a one-month notice.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.4\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
\tJoshi further submitted that the petitioner relied upon  Rule-3  of
\n\tthe Works  of Licensees Rule, 2006 in contending that since  the
\n\tpetitioner  is objecting  to the erection of tower in and\/or  laying
\n\toverhead  line across  their lands,  the respondent No.4 is
\n\trequired  to hear  the petitioner on their objections and thereafter
\n\tconsider the same  and it is only, thereafter, that the respondent
\n\tNo.1  can proceed ahead with  its work from the land  of the
\n\tpetitioners.  It is submitted that the said contention  of the
\n\tpetitioners  deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
13.5
\nMr. Joshi submitted that  under  the provisions of   Section 68 read
\nwith Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Ministry  of
\nPower, Government of India,   by an Order dated  24th
\nof December, 2003,  published in the Gazette of India, authorized
\nthe respondent No.1 to exercise all the powers  vested in the
\nTelegraph Authority under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
\n In view of the said provisions, no prior permission\/consent of the
\nowner, as contended under the aforesaid
\nRules, is required to be obtained  by the respondent No.1 and no
\npermission of the District Magistrate is also required, as  contended
\nunder the aforesaid Rules, in view of the conferment   of power of
\nthe Telegraph Authority  upon the respondent No.1  as stated above
\nand, therefore, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the
\npresent petitioners  and the petitioners have no  enforceable   right
\nto insist    for the prayer  made in the petitions  and, therefore,
\nthe petitions deserve to be dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
13.6\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further submitted that before transmission line  is laid, the
\nrespondent No.1 undertakes survey of  route  in three stages
\naccording to the Manual   of Transmission Line prepared by the
\nPOWERGRID.  The said survey is done in three stages,
\n namely,  Reconnaissance (including walkover) Survey,  Preliminary
\nSurvey and Detailed Survey.  In the process of  reconnaissance
\nsurvey,  a bee line  is drawn
\nbetween  the two sub-stations. The bee line   which is a straight
\nline joining the two terminal points, is marked  and a belt of width
\n10 kms  (20 cms or  the map), on either side   of the centre line,
\nis shown. In the  master mosaic, the bee-line, which is  the straight
\n line joining  two terminal points, should be  neatly marked  with
\npencil.  The bee-line   represents  the shortest  length,   although,
\n   for various reasons,  it may not be  feasible  to construct the
\nline along the bee-line. Keeping   the bee-line
\nconstantly in mind, alternative routes,  with minimum  unavoidable
\ndeviations   from the bee-line, are marked  carefully.  In doing
\nso,  the following  guidelines are kept in mind.\n<\/p>\n
\ti)\tAllowing
\n  minimum number of  crossings of major  rivers,  \t\trailway
\nlines,\tnational\/state  highways,  overhead  EHV \t\tpower and
\ntelecommunication lines.\n<\/p>\n
\tii)\tAvoiding
\n certain natural  features like high mountainous   \t\tterrain, steep
\nslopes \twith cliff  and huge boulders, large  \t\tlakes and marshy
\nplaces, etc.<\/p>\n
\tiii)\tAvoiding
\npopulated areas, narrow gaps  between two  \t\t\tvillages,   large cash
\ncrop \tplantations and places  of \t\tworship, etc.<\/p>\n
iv)\tAvoiding
\nclose  vicinity  of aerodromes,  radio stations, radar centers,
\nrifle \tranges, etc and also industrial installations  where
\npollution, due to  chemical  \teffluents  emanating  therefrom, will
\naffect the operation and maintenance of the power line.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)\tIn
\n\tview of  the statutory   requirements of the Forest  \t(Conservation)
\n\tAct, 1980, \tavoiding, as far as possible, \tthe reserved  and
\n\tprotected forests  and wild life \tsanctuaries. Where unavoidable,
\n\talign the route  so that the \tcutting of  trees is \tkept to be the
\n\tminimum.\n<\/p>\n
vi)\tKeeping
\n sufficiently  away from continuous parallelism which
\n\tTelecommunication  and Railway Telephone lines. If there is
\ncontinuous  \tparallelism with  existing HV or EHV line, it is
\npreferable  to maintain  a \tminimum   separation  of 300 meters.\n<\/p>\n
13.7\t\tIt
\nis further submitted  by Mr. Joshi that  in the course of Walkover
\nSurvey,   after making  the various  feasible  routes on the map, a
\ncomparative  study should be  made on the basis of the following
\ndata.\n<\/p>\n
\tRoute
\n\t length<\/p>\n
\tNumber
\n\tand type  of angle points  in each proposal  indicating the
\n\tsharpness  of each  deviation as measured on the map.\n<\/p>\n
\tNature
\n\tand  number of major  crossings.\n<\/p>\n
\tDeviation
\n\t  in the line due to civil or military  aerodromes and other
\n\tindustrial installations.\n<\/p>\n
\tApproach
\n\tto the   line for construction.\n<\/p>\n
\tReaches
\n\t through protected  or reserved forests.<\/p>\n
\n\t \n\n\n\t\n\t  \n\n\n\tLong\n\tstretches    in cultivated  fields.\n\t \n\n\n\t\n\t  \n\n\n\t  Close\n<\/pre>\n
\tparallelism with telecommunication  and railway telephone circuits.
\n\tWith these   details in hand, a walkover  survey has to be carried
\n\tout  on all the  alternative  routes to arrive  at the most
\n\teconomical   route and to update   the  topographical maps
\n\tavailable   with the latest features  observed  during the survey.\n<\/p>\n
13.8\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further submitted that in the course of walkover survey, one
\nis  required to   go over  the area associated with the  alternative
\n routes proposed and collecting  features observed other than  those
\nexisting on the map. In addition, the indication on the following
\nfeatures would also be required to be checked without fail.\n<\/p>\n
i)\tCommunication
\nlines<\/p>\n
ii)\tPower
\nLines<\/p>\n
iii)\tExpanding
\n villages and towns.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tRich
\ngardens and plantations, etc<\/p>\n
v)\tAerodromes,
\nradar centre, rifle  ranges.\n<\/p>\n
vi)\tUndulating
\nreaches  unfit for erection and maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
Vii)\tRoads
\nconstructed    and roads improved  recently.\n<\/p>\n
Viii)\tSteep
\nsloping terrain or steep slopes   of hills.\n<\/p>\n
ix)\tLarge
\ntanks, lakes, water logged  areas, etc.<\/p>\n
x)\tReserved
\nForests  and wooded areas  with high trees.\n<\/p>\n
xi)\tHigh
\nhillocks and stretches    with large boulders.\n<\/p>\n
Xii)\tIrrigation
\n wells likely to be made, tube well, pump houses.\n<\/p>\n
Xiii)\tForests
\nwhere  menace  of wild elephants  persist<\/p>\n
xiv)\tPrivate
\nproperty  limits where  right of way   cannot be obtained.\n<\/p>\n
xv)\tAvailability
\n of saddles  in still section for better  crossing  of \tvalleys.\n<\/p>\n
Xvi)
\n  Ghat Roads in hills<\/p>\n
xvii)
\n  Gardens  with grafted fruit trees.\n<\/p>\n
Xviii)
\n  Prohibited area  declared under statutory  regulations.\n<\/p>\n
Xiv)\tRocky
\nareas.\n<\/p>\n
13.9\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi, further submitted that on completion  of  the Walkover
\nSurvey,   the proposal  of the most  suited route  is further
\nstudied and approval is obtained from the head of  Department of
\nTransmission   before taking  up preliminary survey.\n<\/p>\n
13.10\t\tMr
\nJoshi further submitted that thereafter preliminary survey is done
\nand  the object of the said survey is to transfer the route
\nselected on the map  on to the ground with such deviation  as may be
\nnecessary due to sealed constraints. And in carrying out the same,
\ntechnical aspects are mainly taken into consideration. It is further
\nsubmitted that the work of the Route Alignment  of the said
\ntransmission line as well as the construction thereof is awarded to
\nthe respondent No.3 and it
\nhas, inter alia,   after taking into consideration all the aspects as
\naforesaid,  submitted a report to the respondent No.1 who has
\napproved  the Route No.I  as the most convenient  route.    Mr. Joshi
\nhas further submitted that while fixing  the transmission like route,
\n only the most  techno-economically   feasible route is chosen
\ncausing least   damage after  complying  with the statutory
\nclearances  and avoiding   places of inhabitation, worship  and
\ndensely  populated areas.  Since the
\n transmission line  requires a clear corridor  of 48 meters   only
\ni.e.   24 meters   on either side  from the centre of the
\ntransmission line, all crops can be cultivated  and the fruit bearing
\ntrees of short height can be grown  and building  put up by
\nmaintaining  sufficient  safety  electric  clearance  as per the
\nElectricity Rules, 1956.  It is further submitted that  the
\ntransmission line would not have any impact on human beings, animals,
\nplants etc  or on the geological  or ecological  system beyond  the
\nstatutory  clearance\/norms provided  by the Indian Electricity Rules,
\n1956.\n<\/p>\n
13.11\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of
\nPower, has accorded  prior approval  under Section 68(1) of the said
\nAct to the  respondent No.1  by an order dated 07.12.2006 for the
\nproposed scheme i.e. Western Region System Strengthening   Scheme IV
\nwith the scope of work, inter alia, including the construction of
\nDehgam-Pirana 400 KV D\/C   line comprising  139  Towers with a length
\nof about  47 kms at a total cost of Rs. 340.72 crores.  The  scheme
\nis duly approved by Government of India to provide  quality power  at
\nthe large with greater   reliability particularly  to the
\nagricultural\/ residential\/commercial establishments   in the State of
\nGujarat    in general and  the areas  in and around the city of
\nAhmedabad  in particular and will be a big boost to the industrial
\nand agricultural growth in the State  and it is executing  the
\nproject  after observing  all legal procedures  and as per the
\nexisting   provisions  under the Electricity Act, Sections  10 to  19
\nof the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and
\nthe Work of Licensees Rules, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
13.12\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further submitted that Dehgam to Pirana  400 KV D\/C  Power
\nTransmission  Line has 139 Towers  in the entire section,    against
\nwhich  foundation work has been completed upto village   Chousar  and
\n 70% Towers have been erected and the erection of balance Towers is
\nin progress and the project is to be completed and  commissioned  by
\nJanuary, 2010 as per Schedule, but because of litigation, the same
\nwas delayed.  It is therefore submitted that  in view of the above,
\n80% of total work of foundation has been completed.\n<\/p>\n
13.13\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further submitted that  laying  of High Tension  Power Line
\nwould not deprive  the petitioners  from making use of the land for
\nwhich  they propose to use  in future and the petitioners  have
\ncompletely failed  in making good their case as  to how  the
\npetitioners would not be able to make use of their lands.  He further
\nsubmitted that  the interpretation of  Rule-3 of the Works of
\nLicensees  Rules, 2006 put forward by the petitioners is not  correct
\n especially in view of    the conferment of the powers of the
\ntelegraph authority  under Part-III of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the
\nquestion of  taking permission from   the owner of the land and
\napproaching the District Magistrate  under the said Rules for the
\napproval does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
13.14\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further submitted that   there is no substance in the
\nallegation that  the laying  of transmission line from the lands of
\nthe  petitioners will deprive the petitioners from utilizing the
\nplots in question in any manner whatsoever.   It is further submitted
\nthat there is no substance in the allegation that  original power
\nsupply  line was to start from village Gamdi  to reach  Lambha
\nTekra.  He has also submitted that  there is no substance in the
\nsubmission that  if  the said power station is constructed on Sardar
\nPatel Ring Road and if said power supply line is laid, then less
\nprivate lands would be affected.   It is further  denied that certain
\n influential  people whose  lands are situated  on the Sardar Patel
\nRing Road,  by using their influence,  have compelled    the
\nrespondents to change the
\nentire power supply line in such a manner  that the respondents are
\nprepared to spend huge amount to lay  power supply  line in such a
\nway to reach Lambha Tekra in a circular route.   Mr. Joshi further
\nsubmitted that  it is not  possible  to lay  400 KV  High Voltage
\nTransmission Line  parallel  to the highway  as a clear  corridor  of
\n48 meters  i.e. 24 meters on either side from the centre  of the
\ntransmission line, is required to be maintained  which is generally
\nnot available  parallel  to
\nthe highway and even if the same is  available, the same would take
\naway the frontage of all the lands over which the transmission line
\nis proposed to pass. It is further submitted that   alongside the
\nhighway, the LT lines of the GEB etc and telecommunication  lines are
\npassing and according to the manual of  transmission line, the
\nrespondent No.1 is  required to keep   the line sufficiently away
\nfrom the continuous parallelism with the Telecommunication   and
\nother LT lines.   He has further submitted that    the route which
\nthe petitioners are suggesting leads towards  more urbanized  and
\npopulated areas which, on the contrary,  is required to be avoided by
\nthe respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
13.15\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further submitted that   the route suggested by the petitioners
\ni.e. parallel   to Government waste land (Nelia)   is not at all
\nfeasible   for the transmission line  of 400 KV.   No such government
\nwaste lands are available
\ncontinuously  starching over  the length of the said transmission
\nline.  It is further submitted that laying of   the  400 KV High
\nVoltage  Transmission Line is highly technical  subject and the route
\n  alignment is done following certain highly technical norms   as
\ndescribed above and the same is done after the extensive survey.   He
\ntherefore   submitted that  any deviation from the same cannot be
\ndone at the desire of the
\npersons  as the same is not convenient to them.\n<\/p>\n
13.16
\nMr. Joshi further submitted that  the action of the respondent Nos. 1
\nand 2  would not amount to depriving  the petitioners  of their
\nproperty  and the same may not amount to breach of  Article 300-A of
\nthe Constitution of India. It is submitted that the said Transmission
\nLine  would not cover the entire lands of the petitioners   so as to
\nmake them entirely  unusable.  It is only on some part of their
\nlands, towers  would be erected by the respondent No.1  for which the
\npetitioners would be entitled to the compensation in the case of
\ntheir proving  loss to them under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act,
\n1885.  In the laying of the transmission line, the respondent No.1
\ndoes not acquire lands  through which the same is to pass but only
\nget the right to make use of the same  for the purpose of laying the
\nelectric  line for which full compensation  is given for the damage
\ncaused.\n<\/p>\n
13.16\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi  further submitted that there is no substance in the allegation
\n of the petitioners that  no proper hearing was given to the
\npetitioners and the   respondent No.4 has not given any reasons  in
\nthe impugned order.  He submitted that   a bare perusal  of the order
\npassed by the respondent No.4 clearly shows  that the respondent No.4
\nhas given  reasons to pass such an order and opportunity  of hearing
\nwas also afforded to the
\npetitioners and, therefore,    looking to the observations  made
\ntherein,  no interference  is required to be made in the impugned
\norder.    He has further submitted that  the report of  Dr. Neil
\nCherry on the effect of the Electromagnetic Fields  does not appear
\nto have any statutory recognition  and as provided  in the relevant
\nRules,  in laying   overhead
\nlines, the respondent No.1 is required to maintain  sufficient
\nclearance from the ground  level so as to  avoid any  damage to the
\nproperty and person and, therefore, the contentions   raised by the
\npetitioners   are  devoid of any merits.\n<\/p>\n
13.17\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi  further submitted that  the petitioners have no prima facie
\ncase in their favour.  It is  not technically feasible to divert  the
\nline as suggested by the petitioners as alignment of transmission
\nline is done after detailed survey as  per the topography  of land
\nwith a view to cause least disturbance   to the existing villages.
\nMoreover,   in a  47 Kms
\ntransmission line, there has to be some diversion for the route
\nalignment and if such prayer
\n of the petitioners is accepted, then it would create a bad
\nprecedence and others may also ask for the diversion of line. It is
\ntherefore submitted that the respondents cannot be directed  to erect
\ntransmission line in a zigzag manner.  It is further submitted that
\n80%  of the foundation  and nearly 70% of erection of towers  is
\ncompleted   and the projects  involves  the estimated costs of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
340.72 crores.     He has further
\nsubmitted that well before the filing of the present petitions,
\nthe respondents had  already
\ncompleted the work of  foundation upto village Chausar, which is   at
\nthe distance of nearly 22 kms from village Kanbha.    Therefore, it
\nis submitted that  the interests of individuals  are to give way to
\nlarger interest.\n<\/p>\n
13.18\t\tIn
\nsupport of  the submissions, Mr. Joshi has relied on the decision of
\nthis Court in the case of JIVIBEN MOTIBHAI PATEL vs.
\nEXECUTIVE  ENGINEER (C & M), GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BAORD,  BARODA
\nAND ANR,<\/a> as reported in 37(1) GLR 470,
\nwherein it is held that looking to the provisions of Section 42, the
\nentire  mechanism   and the Scheme  of Section 42 is  that  where the
\nsanctioned  scheme gives powers, the Board  or generating Company
\nshall exercise such powers.  When the  sanctioned Scheme  does not
\nconfer such power, the Board or the generating company has no option
\nbut to take recourse to the provisions of Section 12 to 19 of the
\nElectricity Act. No doubt,  in each case,
\nhowever, the Board shall be bound by the express provisions of
\nSection 17 of the Electricity Act. In view of Section 42 with Part
\nIII of the Indian  Telegraph Act, the generating  company has also
\nsuch powers to fix poles, wires,
\n etc  in the agricultural  land of a private person and that person
\ncannot object either on the principles of  natural justice or on the
\nground of unauthorized user.   All he is entitled to is compensation
\n provided  for under the
\nproviso (d) to Section 10 of the Telegraph Act.    It
\nis further observed that Section 51 makes a clear provision
\nempowering the State Government by an order  in writing to confer
\nsuch powers of fixing of electric supply line, appliances and
\napparatus   for the transmission of energy or for the  purpose of
\ntelephonic or telegraphic   communications
\n necessary for  proper coordination  of works, upon a public office,
\nBoard or licensee or any other person  engaged in the business of
\nsupplying energy to the  public under Section 28   of the Electricity
\nAct, as are  vested in the Telegraph  Authority under the Indian
\nTelegraph Act. Therefore, there is no doubt  in holding that the
\nprovisions  of Section 51 override provisions  of Sections  12 to 16
\nand  18 and 19 of the Electricity Act. Those powers given to the
\nState  Government under Section 51 are  undoubtedly wide and capable
\nof affecting powers sometimes prejudicially.  The Court, therefore,
\nheld that  the State Government   is empowered to give  powers to the
\nBoard or licensee  for placing  of electric supply lines, wires  and
\napparatus  for transmission
\nand distribution of energy.\n<\/p>\n
13.19\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further  relied on a decision of this Court in the case of
\nJAYANTIKUMAR BHAGUBHAI  PATEL  & ANR vs. STATE OF GUJARAT   &
\nANR., as reported in AIR 2007 Guj  32, wherein after referring to
\nvarious decisions  cited before  the Court, it was held that the
\npetitioners have filed  the said petition with an oblique motive and
\nfor extraneous considerations.  The Court further held that there is
\nno substance in any of the petitions and the same are accordingly
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
13.20\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further relied on a decision of the  High Court of Andhra
\nPradesh, in the case of G.V.S.  RAMAKRISHNA & ORS. vs. A.P.
\nTRANSCO, REP. BY  ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS.,<\/a> as reported in AIR
\n2009 AP 158,  wherein it is held  that neither  acquisition nor
\nconsent   required  of owner for placing electric supply lines or
\nelectric poles for transmission of electricity  on or over private
\nlands.\n<\/p>\n
13.21\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Joshi further relied on the decision of the  Jharkhand High Court in
\nthe case of AJAY MUNJAL MEMORIAL TRUST & ORS.    vs. POWER
\nGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA  & ORS., as reported in AIR 2008,
\nJharkhand 34.  The view taken by the  Jharkhand High Court in the
\naforesaid matter  is also the same view as was taken by the Gujarat
\nand Andhra Pradesh High Courts.\n<\/p>\n
14\t\tBased
\non the aforesaid  factual background  and the decisions of this Court
\nas well as other courts, Mr. Joshi  has strongly  urged that there is
\nno substance or merit in the petition  and hence  both  the petitions
\n be summarily dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
15\t\tHaving
\n heard the learned counsels appearing  for the parties and having
\nconsidered their rival submissions in light of  the provisions
\ncontained in Electricity Act, 2003  as well as  Indian Telegraphs
\nAct and Rules framed thereunder and having gone through the order
\npassed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 28.02.2010 on the
\napplication  made by the respondent No.1 Company  on 21.12.2009,  the
\nCourt is of the view that the District Magistrate has rightly taken
\nthe decision of allowing the Respondent Nos.1  and 2   to lay High
\nTension Power Lines  by erecting  Towers  on the land belonged to the
\npetitioners  and of directing  the petitioners to  co-operate  the
\nRespondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the said project.   There is no dispute
\nabout the fact that a Scheme known as Western Region  System
\nStrengthening Scheme-VI was  proposed on 30.09.2006.  The Government
\nof India has granted prior approval to  the Respondent No.1  under
\nSection 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for the installation of
\noverhead  lines under this Scheme by an Order dated 08.02.2007.  It
\nhas also  come on record  that the Ministry of Power, Government of
\nIndia, in exercise of power conferred  under Section 164 of the
\nElectricity Act, 2003,  passed an Order on 24.12.2003 duly published
\nin the Extraordinary  Gazette, authorizing the respondent No.1  to
\nexercise  all the powers vested in the Telegraph Authority  under
\nPart-III  of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.\n<\/p>\n
16\t\tOn
\nan analysis  of Section 67 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act,
\n2003,  it is very obvious that  whenever  an order is passed by the
\nappropriate Government in exercise of the powers under Section  164
\nof the Electricity Act, 2003 for  placing of  electric lines  for the
\ntransmission of electricity, conferring upon any Public Officer,
\nlicensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying
\nelectricity  any of the powers which  the telegraph  authority
\npossesses under the  Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to the
\nplacing of telegraphic lines and posts  for the purposes of  a
\ntelegraph  established  by the Government, such public  officer,
\nlicensee or any other  person engaged  in the business of supplying
\nelectricity stands  in the  same position  as regards  the exercise
\nof power as the  telegraph  authority  under the Indian Telegraph
\nAct, 1885. It is, however,  true that in absence of  such an order
\nunder Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if a licensee i.e. a
\nperson who has been granted a licence  to transmit  electricity  or
\nto distribute electricity  under the Act, proposes   to place
\nelectric  lines, electric  poles or other works necessary for
\ntransmission or supply of electricity, Section 67 of  the Electricity
\n Act, 2003 comes into  operation and consequently it is mandatory  to
\nobtain the consent of the concerned   owner or occupier.   In the
\npresent case, Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has admittedly
\nbeen invoked and in exercise of the  powers conferred  thereunder,
\nthe Government of India  conferred  on the Respondent No.1  the
\npowers which the telegraph  authority possesses  under the Indian
\nTelegraph Act, 1885.  Consequently,  the Respondent No.1, for the
\npurpose of  laying High Tension  Power Lines through the lands of the
\npetitioners, is competent  to  exercise  all the powers   possessed
\nby the telegraphic authority   under the Indian  Telegraph Act, 1885.\n<\/p>\n
17\t\tSection
\n10 of he Indian Telegraph Act, 1885  empowers  the telegraph
\nauthorities to place and maintain  the telegraph lines   under, over,
\nalong or  across and posts in or upon any immovable  property.
\nHowever,  the said power  shall not be exercised  in respect of any
\nproperty vested  in or under the  control or management   of any
\nlocal  authority  without the permission of that authority.   The
\nproviso (d) to Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885  further
\nmakes it clear that while exercising powers conferred under
\nSection-10, the telegraph authority   shall do as little damage as
\npossible and when it has exercised  those powers  in respect of any
\nproperty other than the property  under the control or management of
\nthe local authority, shall pay  full compensation   to all the
\npersons  interested for any damage  sustained  by them by reason of
\nexercise of the said powers.  It is also important  to take  note of
\nproviso (b) to Section  10 of the Indian  Telegraph Act, 1885,  under
\nwhich, the Central Government  shall not acquire  any right  other
\nthan that of  user only in the property  under, over, along, across
\nin or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph  lines
\nor posts.   Thus, it is apparent  that the powers  under Section 10
\nof  the Indian  Telegraph Act, 1885 can be exercised  without
\nacquiring  the land  in question and the only right that can be
\nexercised  is the right of user in the property  and for the
\npurposes  mentioned in that Section.\n<\/p>\n
18\t\tThe
\nabove discussion  makes it abundantly   clear that  Section 164 of
\nthe Electricity Act, 2003  read with Section 10 of the Indian
\nTelegraph Act, 1885 recognized   the absolute  power of the
\nRespondent No.1 to proceed  with laying High Tension Electric Lines
\nor electric posts   for the transmission of electricity  on or over
\nthe lands  belonged to  the petitioners subject to  the right  of the
\npetitioners  to claim  compensation  if any damage   is sustained by
\nthem by reason of laying  such High Tension Electric  Lines, in other
\nwords, neither  the acquisition  of the lands is necessary nor there
\nis any need for  consent of  the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
19\t\tThe
\ncourt has also considered the submission of Mr. Joshi that  before
\ntransmission line is laid,  the Respondent  No.1 undertook  survey of
\nroute  in  three stages, namely,  Reconnaissance  (including
\nwalkover) survey,  Preliminary Survey and  Detailed survey.  Various
\naspects   were discussed,  deliberated and thereafter, final decision
\n was taken.  The efforts made, procedure   followed and exercise
\nundertaken  have been explained in great detail in the
\naffidavit-in-reply  filed on behalf of the  Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
\nIt provides  complete  answers to all the issues  raised by the
\npetitioners.  The allegations  regarding  mala fides  and
\nnon-application  of mind etc   did not have any place, whatsoever in
\nthis case.  The petitioners’  submissions   regarding alternative
\nroute  will have no basis at all  as substantial work   has been done
\n by now. As per the  details furnished  before the court, 80%  of the
\nfoundation and nearly 70%  of erection of towers   is completed.
\nBut for the  present litigations,  the entire  project  could have
\nbeen  completed as  per the schedule.\n<\/p>\n
20\t\tThe
\nimpugned  order passed by the District Magistrate  does not suffer
\nfrom the vice of non-observance of principle of natural justice nor
\nit is  in any way  contrary to  the directions  issued by this Court.
\n  The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have  approached  the Respondent No.4 by
\nway of an  application. The petitioners have filed  their objections
\nwhich were  duly considered before passing such order. Considering
\nthe relevant  statutory   provisions,  requisite  sanctions  and
\napprovals  and the settled legal position, the Respondent  No.4 has
\npassed the just  and proper order which does not call for any
\ninterference of this Court  while exercising  its writ jurisdiction
\nunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
21\t\tThe
\ndecision of Kerala High Court  in the case of  Valsamma Thomas
\n(supra) is of no assistance to the petitioners. In the present case,
\norder passed by the District Magistrate is a speaking order.
\nObjections received from the petitioners  are duly  considered.
\nFindings  arrived at by him  can never be said to be  perverse nor it
\nis  mala fide  exercise of  powers.  The Kerala High Court,
\ntherefore,  in the end, rightly  observed that the Court would  not
\nbe justified  in substituting  its own opinion  as the Court  has not
\ngot technical   expertise and, therefore,  it should  be slow to
\ninterfere with such matter. The decisions  relied upon by Mr. Joshi
\nare directly on the point. This Court  had an occasion  to deal with
\nthis issue earlier in Special Civil Application No.  3067 of 2010
\ndecided on 09.03.2010, wherein  after considering earlier two
\njudgments  of this Court in Jiviben Motibhai  Patel (supra)  and
\nJayantikumar  Bhagubhai Patel and Another (supra), it is held that in
\nview of specific powers  conferred on the respondents, the work
\nundertaken by them is in  conformity  with the  said authority and it
\ncannot be  said that they have undertaken  the said work  without
\ntaking  into consideration  all the pros and cons  of the issues.
\nThe Andhra Pradesh  and Jharkhand  High Courts have also taken the
\nsame view as this Court in earlier   matters as well as in the
\npresent matter, is taking.\n<\/p>\n
22\t\tin
\nview of the above discussion,  the Court does not   find any
\nsubstance  or merits in any of these two petitions.  Hence, both the
\npetitions are accordingly dismissed.  Notice discharged.  Interim
\nrelief  stands vacated.  Request of extension of interim relief  is
\nalso rejected.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(K.\n<\/p>\n
A. PUJ, J.)<\/p>\n
pnnair<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2813\/2010 1\/ 37 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2813 of 2010 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2814 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-27T17:28:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-27T17:28:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7670,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-27T17:28:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-27T17:28:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-27T17:28:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010"},"wordCount":7670,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010","name":"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-27T17:28:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-additional-district-magistrate-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance : vs Additional District Magistrate on 30 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}