GOVIND MATHUR,J. - (1.) In pursuance to a notification issued by the Energy Department, Government of Rajasthan, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2003') as well as the powers available being the Telegraph Authority as per provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1885'), the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the RRVPN Limited'), accorded sanction for right of way for erection/construction of 400 KV D/C BHADLA-BIKANER TRANSMISSION LINE, passing through the villages enlisted in a notification dated July 4, 2013. While passing through the village KHARA, the electricity line was to cross the boundaries of the factory of the petitioners, a partnership firm. As per the petitioners this fact came into their knowledge when certain officials of the RRVPN Limited visited the site on 23.9.2013 and orally informed about proposed electricity line. It was also conveyed to them that to execute the project, the boundary and a part of building of the petitioners' factory have to be broken. Apprehending damage, the petitioners preferred a civil suit which came to be rejected being barred as per Section 145 of the Act of 2003. An appeal giving challenge to that also came to be rejected on March 1, 2014. The petitioners then approached to the authorities of the Government of Rajasthan as well as the RRVPN Limited for redressal of the grievance with regard to the way granted to the electricity line, but of no consequence, hence the instant petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the RRVPN Limited is acting arbitrarily while laying down the electricity line, as much as no notice is given to the petitioners and the persons alike while entering and damaging their property. The authorities of the RRVPN Limited are trespassing to the land of the petitioners causing destruction to it and snatching the property which could not have been taken without authority of law as prescribed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(e) of subsection(2) of Section 176 read with sub-section(2) of Section 67 of the Act of 2003 framed the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2006'), rule 3 of which provides a procedure for entering into a property wherefrom electricity line is to be passed, but the procedure prescribed is neither fair nor objective. It is asserted that Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 2006 empowers a licensee to forcefully take over possession on property and even to destroy it, as such, rule 3(1) is bad being contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Advocate while substantiating this argument asserted that Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 2006 arms a licensee with unguided, unchanneled arbitrary powers, hence, the same is hit by Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India also. In support of the argument certain judgments are also cited to the effect that if any statute germinates any arbitrary power which is in conflict of the fundamental rights of a citizen, then such statute deserves to be declared unconstitutional.
(3.) Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RRVPN Limited, the argument advanced by learned counsel is having no merit in view of the fact that whatever power given under the Rules of 2003 which are framed by the Central Government exercising powers under the Act of 2003 are just and reasonable. It is asserted that as per Section 164 of the Act of 2003 the licensee is having all authority which are available to a telegraph authority under the Act of 1885 with respect to the placing of telegraph line and posts for the purpose of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained. In view of it, the licensee while laying down electricity line shall adhere the procedure given under Part-III of the Act of 1885 in addition to rule 3 of the Rules of 2006. Shri. M.R.Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, also cited a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, Nagpur, reported in AIR 2015 Bombay 283, affirming the constitutional validity of rule 3 of the Rules of 2006.;