Court Clarifies That Section 16(1) Does Not Preclude a Hearing and Reaffirms Limited Scope of Writ Review in Technical Alignment Disputes
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/1887/2025 of INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LIMITED Vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE |
| CNR | UKHC010095252025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that disputed questions of fact and technical alignment decisions by experts are not amenable to writ review. While Section 16(1) empowers the District Magistrate to intervene in the event of obstruction, it is silent on affording a hearing to landowners. To fill this procedural gap, the Court directed that if Section 16(1) is invoked, the DM must provide the affected landowner an opportunity of hearing before passing orders. Further, landowners retain rights under Section 17 and may approach the competent authority for their enforcement. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners own about 110 acres in Tehri District and planned a ₹1,000-crore wellness project. Respondent No. 2 proposed a 400 kV HTLS transmission line across petitioners’ land. Public notice was issued in February 2017; no objections were filed. Approvals under Section 164 of the Electricity Act and forest clearance were obtained. The petition was filed in June 2025, and tower 54 was already erected on the land. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7515 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | District Magistrates and subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act does not expressly require a hearing, but the High Court has mandated one where the provision is invoked.
- High Courts will not re-open expert or technical decisions on transmission line alignment in writ proceedings.
- Landowners can invoke Section 17 safeguards by approaching the competent authority for compensation or other rights.
- In future petitions, lawyers should seek an express direction for a hearing under Section 16(1) and highlight Section 17 rights.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Scope of Writ Review
- The Court cannot adjudicate disputed technical or factual questions arising from expert authorities.
-
Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act
- Empowers the District Magistrate to remove obstructions but is silent on landowner hearings.
- To remedy this procedural lacuna, the Court directs the DM to provide an opportunity of hearing if Section 16(1) is invoked.
-
Section 17 Safeguards
- Petitioners retain statutory rights under Section 17 and may approach the competent authority for enforcement.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- They purchased 110 acres for a ₹1,000-crore wellness and hospitality project with in-principle state approval.
- Proposed alignment through Khasra No. 644 would jeopardize their investment.
- Sought production of records, re-alignment, stay of construction, and mandatory hearing under Sections 10, 16, 17 Telegraph Act.
Respondent No. 2 (Transmission Company)
- Public notice issued on 10.02.2017 in Gazette and local newspapers; no objections filed.
- Approval under Section 164 of the Electricity Act granted on 01.11.2017; ₹31.5 crore deposited for forest clearance.
- Project at final stage; any change now would delay completion and cause cost overruns.
Factual Background
Petitioners (No. 2–11) acquired about 110 acres in Tehri district between 2010–12 to develop a ₹1,000-crore wellness and hospitality project with state MOU and in-principle approval. Respondent No. 2 proposed a 400 kV HTLS transmission line across petitioners’ land and obtained all statutory approvals after a public notice in February 2017, to which no objections were filed. In June 2025, petitioners filed this writ challenging the alignment, and by that time tower No. 54 had already been erected on Khasra No. 644.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10, 16, and 17, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
- Section 16(1): Empowers District Magistrate to remove obstruction in laying lines; silent on hearing requirement.
- Section 17: Provides compensation and safeguards to landowners for damages or loss resulting from the laying of lines.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court’s directive to District Magistrates to provide a hearing under Section 16(1) fills a procedural gap in the Telegraph Act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the limits of judicial review in technical alignment disputes and clarifies statutory procedure under the Telegraph Act.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7515
- CNR UKHC010095252025
- Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1887 of 2025