'Can't Thrust Gujarat Model Of Underground Transmission Lines On Authorities': Madras HC Dismisses Appeals Against Electricity Project In Krishnagiri

Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ appeal challenging the laying of high tension transmission lines at Sevaganappalli in Krishnagiri, allegedly contravention of distance norms and disregard for potential health hazards.

The appellants argued that the sub-station would be supplying electricity solely to Exide Industries Limited while the State submitted that the project will be equally beneficial to the nearby villages that experience electricity deficit. Apart from challenging the grant of approval by pitting it against Article 14, the writ appellants/ petitioners further submitted that realigning the 110 KV DC lines or laying underground transmission lines like in Gujarat will be a plausible alternative.

About the alternatives proposed by the appellants, the court noted in the judgment that the 'Gujarat Model' cannot be imposed on the Respondent Authorities, especially when 24 towers have already been erected and transmission lines are being laid. 

"A reference of Gujarat model has been given, but it cannot be imposed on the respondent authorities because they have wisdom to decide as to whether to go with underground transmission lines or overhead lines. This court cannot thrust the opinion of the appellants upon the respondents to go for underground transmission lines for the remaining towers...", the court noted.

The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy concluded that the project approved by the Chief Engineer (Civil Transmission, TANTRANSCO) is not opposed to any legal provisions including Indian Telegraph Act or the Electricity Act. The single-judge bench had previously held that the transmission lines could be laid in agricultural lands as per the Electricity Act if adequate compensation is paid. Therefore, the first bench dismissed the writ appeals.

However, the appellants have been given liberty to raise the issue of the minimum distance required to be maintained from buildings before the respondent authorities. The petitioners contended that it was 4.1 meters under Regulation 61 of Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 while the State submitted that it was 2.75 metres under Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. 

Though Senior Counsel Prashant Bhushan initially submitted that the width of the right of way of 22 metres has not been maintained for laying the 110 KV Line with respect to another construction, the court acknowledged the Additional Advocate General's submission that the said construction was raised after the commencement of the project and erection of DC Towers. The court, after expressing its reluctance to accept the Senior Counsel's argument, noted as below:

"...one cannot be permitted to tinker with the situation knowing about the alignment of laying of the DC Towers. It is more so when 24 towers out of 32 towers have already been erected. It is only due to the interim order (single bench interim order), the remaining towers could not be erected, out of which only three towers would be passing through the agricultural fields of the appellant Nos. ..."

The bench also said that it was doubtful about the bona fides of other appellants party to the writ petition since transmission lines are clearly not laid near their residential houses. The court underscored that when a project is approved in public interest, the transmission lines cannot be realigned according to the whims of one or two parties; it must be decided by experts. 

In the single bench order that the petitioners were challenging, the first bench referred to the facts categorically recorded regarding physical inspection by Revenue Divisional Officer and Village Administrative Officer to ensure that the route suggested by experts would be the best route.

Senior Counsel Prashant Bhushan had relied on the Report of the World Health Organisation (WHO) on the detrimental health impacts of exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields caused by transmission lines that are passing through the residential area in the village. Refuting those submissions, AAG submitted that the WHO studies are not applicable in India and that transmission lines pass over the top of many hutments and agricultural lands in the State of Tamil Nadu without any reports of these lines causing cancer/leukaemia.

AAG also added that the environmental studies referred to by the petitioners are only applicable in Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden etc. These reports/ studies cannot be applied because no such surveys have been conducted with reference to India and if such reports/ studies are taken seriously, then the state will not even be able to lay a power line in close proximity to residences.

Senior Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on R.Palanisamy v. Union of India & Ors (2019) wherein the WHO Report was acknowledged though the single bench went on to hold that if a certain project is over 50 per cent complete, then it need not be stopped. 

The petitioners contended that the progress of the project has not gone beyond 50 per cent in toto. They argued that the transmission lines are yet to be laid even for the erected DC Towers.

Previously. AAG had submitted that 24 towers out of 32 towers have been erected and 75% of the work has already been completed as held by the single bench judge. According to AAG, the process of laying transmission lines is at the last stage. Noting all these submissions, the first bench added in the judgment as follows:

"...the fact aforesaid shows that more than 50% of the work has not only been completed, but work relating to laying of transmission lines is in progress. At this stage, if we direct the realignment of transmission lines, it would be tantamount to substituting the view of the experts, which is substantiated by the view of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Village Administrative Officer..."

With regards to the petitioners' allegation without any legal grounds that the project only benefits a single company, the court opted not to doubt the bona fides of the respondent authorities including Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited that approved the said project.

Case Title: T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Case No: W.A.Nos.439 and 440 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

Appearance: For the Appellants: Mr Prashant Bhushan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.Jayasudha

For the Respondents: Mr J.Ravindran Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr L.Jaivenkatesh for respondents Nos.1 and 5

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment