Gorati Sunitha v. Union of India
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-05. Gorati Sunitha v. Union of India. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3488 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL NO: 4 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Against Order Dated 2511112025 in WP No 23776 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Gorati Sunitha, W/o Gorati Ramulu, Aged about 39 yrs Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. 2-44ll KadthalVillage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 2. Goreti Srisailam, S/o Anjaiah Aged, about 44 yrs Occ Agriculture R/o 3-39, Opp Udipi hotel KadthalVillage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 3. Muda Ganesh, S/o Muda Krishnaiah Aged 35 yrs Occ Agriculture No. 2- 42172 KadthalVillage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 4. Kandikanti Sriramulu, S/o Kandikanti Rajaiah Aged 55 yts Occ Agriculture P/o. 4-7011/1 Kadthal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 5.
Muda Ramesh, S/o Muda Jangaiah Aged 43 yrs Occ Agriculture R/o. 2-88 Near Shivalayam Temple Kadthal Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 6. Agirishetti Sugandha, W o Agirishetti Anjaiah Aged ! 4 yfl O-cc^ Agriculture R/b 11-5-389/A P No 110 Sri Venkateshwara colony Road No8 Saroornagar Ranga Reddy Dist 500035 7. Gude Ramaiah, S/o Gude Malliah Aged about 66 yrs Occ Agriculture R/ o 469 KadthalVillage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 8. . Gude Rajendar, S/o Gude Ramaiah Aged about 40 yrs Occ Agriculture R/ o KadthalVillage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 9. Gude Bhar:athimma, Wo Gude Ramulu Aged about 65 yrs Occ Agriculture R/o Kadthal Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358, 10. Goreti Chandrasekhar, S/o Mallaiah Aged about 32 yrs Occ Agriculture R/o. 2"44ll KadthalVillage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 11. Gudur Srinivas Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy Aged about 52 yrs Occ Agr. iculture Ryo. 1-30 KadthalViltage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist509358 12.
Gorati Krishtaiah, S/o Mallaiah Aged about 38 Yrs Occ Agriculture PUo. 2-4411 KadthalVillage and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 l3. Jambula Abhishek Reddy, S/o Jambula Radha Krishna ReddyAged about 38 Yrs Occ Agriculture R/o. 8-4-12159, Plot No 59 Sairam Nagar Phase 2 Anji Reddy Nagar Kharaman Ghat Saroornagar Ranga Reddy Dist500079 j: ljt:tt i 14. Kadari Ramakrishna, S/o Kadari Shivaraju Aged about 41 Yrs Occ Agriculture R/o. Kadthal Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 15. Guduru Shekar Reddy, S/o Kanth Reddy Aged about 66 Yrs Occ Agricullure P. '/o. 2-11 Shivalayam Street Kadthal Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 16. Guduru Bharathamma, Wo G Krishna Reddy Aged about 74 Yrs Occ Agriculture Fl/o. Plot No. 8 H No 8-7-55, Hasthinapuram Central Near sai baba temple, Shiridi Sai Nagar Colony, Vaishalinagar Ranga Reddy Dist 500079 17. Shekhar Kalyankar, S/o Late K Kishan Ji, Aged about 64 Yrs, Occ Agriculture, R/o.
1:l-3-396/148/8, Durga Nagar, Sai Durga Nagar Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad 500006 18. Muthy h. rishna, S/o Muthy Jangaiah, Aged about 41 Yrs, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Kadthal Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist 509358 19. . Nenavath Jemla, S/o. Nenavath Thouriya, Aged about 54 Yrs Occ Agriculhrre, Plot No 58 SP Gayathri Hills Nadergul Ranga Reddy Dist 50151 0 20.. Jambula Radha Krishna Reddy, S/o Jambula Damodhar Reddy Aged about 54 Yrs C)cc Agriculture FUo. 8-4-12159, Plot No 59, Sairam Nagar Phase 2 Anji Reddy Nagar Kharaman Ghat Saroomagar Ranga Reddy Dist500079 21. M Lachi"am, S/o M Bivhya Nayak, Aged about 44 Yrs Occ Agriculture H No. 36 Kadthal Post Mysigandi, Kanugubavi Thanda Kadthal Village and Mandal flanga Reddy Dist 509358 ... APPELLANTS AND '1 . Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Ma41 New Delhi 2. The Central Electricity Authority, Seva Bhavan R K Puram New Delhil 10066 3.
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Having its office at 3rd and 4th Floor Chanderlok Building No 36 Janpath New Delhi 1 '10001 4. The Distri:t Magistrate and District Collector, Ranga Reddy District 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy Dis,trict 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadthal Village Kadthal Mandal Ranga Reddy District 7. Powergrid Bidar Transmission Ltd, A wholly Owne{ Subsidiary offqrvgr G1t! Comoration of lndia Limited Shad Nagar Office CAO Plot No 779 Sri Sai Baleji Township Solipur Village Shad Nagar Ranga Reddy District 509 216 ...
RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 7th Re:;pondent not to lay the transmission lines of 765kv through the Kadthal Viltage, more specifically between the identified marks C and B marked on the plan, while suspending the order dated 25. 11. 2025 passed in W. P. No. 23776 of 2025 dismissing the writ petition. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI A. SUHAS CHARY for SRI T. SURYA SATISH Gounser for the Respondent No. 1ro3 "t#iil;? Hlt[? 6rif.. ; counser for the Respondents No. 4tou' KATRAM, :B lrrTfiLlTJfif=REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No. 7 : SRI L. RAVICHANDER, Senior Counsel for SRI MAYUR MUNDRA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FIORTHE STATE OF TEI. ANGAIIA AT ITYDERABAD THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESIH KT'ITIAR SINGIT AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHTUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.
4 OF 2o26 DAT8206. 02. 20. 26 Between: Gorati Sunitha and 2O others .. Appellants AND Union of l. rdia and 6 others .... Respondents JUDGMENT This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 25. 11. 2025 passed by thc learned Single Judge in W. P. NI. 23776 of 2025, whereby the vt,rit petition liled by appellants (hereinafter referred to as krit petitionersJ seeking a writ of mandamus against the ',765 laying of KV overhead electricity transmission lines over their agri<:ultural lands in Kadthal Village, Ranga Reddy District, lva:s dismi. ssed. 2. Hear<l Sri T. Sur1'a Satish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A. Suhas Chary, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue department for respondcnt Nos. 4 to 6 and Sri L. Ravichancter, Iearnccl Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of \t I Sri Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and perused the material on record. Factual background (in brieff 3.
The 7th respondent i. e. , Powergrid Bidar Transmission Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, is engaged in the execution of a transmission project titled 'Transmission Scheme for Solar Enerry Zone in Bidar (2500 MW), Karnataka', which inter alia includes construction of the Bidar PS - Maheshwaram (PG) 765 KV Double Circuit transmission line. 4. In furtherance of the said project, prior approval under Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (fcrr short '2003 Act) was accorded by the Ministry of Powcr on 03. 10. 2023. public notices inviting objections were issued by . Thereafter, publication in the Gazette of India dated 1O. O8. 2O24, as well as in three widely circulated newspapers, namely: The Times of India, Hindi Milap and Sakshi, on 25. 05. 2024. It is not in dispute that no objections were received from the public within the stipulated period. 5.
Subsequently, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) granted a transmission licence to the 7e respondent on 30. LO. 2024. Final authorization under Section L64 of the 2003 Act was thereafter granted by the Ministry of Power uid. e Gazette Notification No. 578 dated 31. 0 r. 2o2s, specifying the villages through which the transmission line would l)ass, including Kadthal Village. 6. Pursuant to the above statutory clearances, the 7th responclent commt:nced field activities from October, 2024, includirrg survey, alignment marking and foundation works for erection of transmission towers. It was contended by the appellan ts herein that notices were issued to certain landholcers, including appellant Nos. 1 to 6, and construction activity also commc'nced on lands of other appellants, who allege that individual notices were not served upon them. 7.
Agllrieved thereby, the appellants, claiming to be small and marginal farnrers, surbmitted representations during october-I,lovember, 2024 to the local Member of Legislative Assembly the Gram Panchayat, the revenue authorities and the 7*r respondent. In the said representations, they alleged deviation from the approved alignment, erection of towers at unapproved angle points, absence of prior notice or consent, high-hand,:d execution of works with police assistance, and adverse impact on agricultural operations and future development of the village. 8. The etppellants also sought information under the Right to Informatiorr Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act') from the Central Electricityr\uthority. Relyingupontherepliesfurnishedthereto, theyconterrdedthatthealignmentbeingexecutedbytheTth respondent in Kadthat village did not correspond with the alignment originallY aPProved. g. on the aforesaid grounds, the appellants approached this courr by filing w. P. No. 23776 of 2025.
The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25. 11 . 2025, holding, inter alia, that no substantive material was placed on record to establish deviation from the approved alignment; that the 7ft respondent had substantially complied with the statutory requirements under the 2003 Act ancl the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (for short '2006 Rules'), and that the appellants had efficacious alternative remedies available under the statutory framework. l 10. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred present writ apPeal. "the Submissions on behalf of the appellants 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended as hereunder: i. That the 7th respondent has acted in excess of the statutory authorisations granted to it. ii. That the transmission line is being executed by deviating from the approved route alignment as notified under Gazette Notification No. 578 dated 31. o l.
2o2s, issued in exercise of powers under Section 164 ofthe 2oo3 Act. ) iii. ilhat the Angle Points referred to in the notices issued to some of the appellants, namely AP-L22|O, AP-122A, AP- 123, AP-125, AP-126 and AP-130, do not form part of the approved alignment insofar as Kadthal Village is ccncerned, and that erection of towers at these points anrounts to an unauthorised deviation. iv. That works were commenced without issuing individual nor-ices to all affected landowners and without obtaining their consent, l. hereby violating the 20O6 Rules. v. Tha. t the alignment was deliberately altered to benefit certain influent. ial persons, resulting in disproportionate harrlship to smztll and marginal farmers of the village. vi. That the 7ft respondent proceeded with execution of the works without possessing a valid transmission licence " until 30. 01 . 2025 and in breach of the statutory scheme governing transmission projects' vii.
That the permission obtained from the District collector und'et. Section16(i)oftheIndianTelegraphAct,lSS5(for short. 1885Act,)wasmisusedtodeploypoliceforceina coercive manner, thereby stifling legitimate objections / I :l 12. The learned Government Pleader and Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order of the learned Single Judge and contended hereunder: i. That the W. P. No. 23776 of 2025, as . well as the present appeal, is devoid of merit and proceeds on erroneous assumptions. ii. That the Tttr respondent is a deemed transmission licensee under Section 14 of the 2003 Act and is fully authorised to execute the project in question. iii. That the alignment was linalised only after undertaking detailed feasibility studies, technical suryeys and environmental, economic, safety, topographical and logistical assessments, strictly in accordance with . Rule l0 of the 2006 Rures.
public notices inviting objections were duly issued by way of Gazette and newspaper pubrications on 25. 05. 2024, and no objections were received within the prescribed time. iv. That all requisite statutory clearances, including approvals from the Railways, the National Highways Aurhoriry of India (NHAU and the Endowments Depag:ment, were obtained prior to commencement of the works. 'rhat v minor adjustments in tower locations or Angle points €rre inevitable engineering variations dictated by site- specilic ground conditions and do not constitute deviation from the approved route alignment. vl That the Angle Points objected to by the gppellants do, in far:t, form part of the sanctioned alignment as notified under Gazette Notification No. 578 dated 31. 01. 2025. vll. Thrr. t the order under Section 16(1) of the 1885 Act was lawfully issued and that police assistance was requisitioned only to prevent obstruction to a project of naticnal importance and not to coerce landowners.
of each appellant, v111 That the Annexure-I, providing details the number of legs of the transmission line falling within the extent of their respective lands' along with the of issuance was " numbers and dates corresponding notice said It is submitted that the Annexure brougiht on record' clearlyestablishesthatalltheappellantsweredulyput thereby of the works' prior to commencement on ntltice of lack of notice' dispelling the allegation 13. ThelearnedSeniorCounselfortherespondentNo. Tin has placed reliance on the following support of his case decisions: i. ThePowerGrtdCorporationoflndiaLtmltedt,. century Textlles & Industries Llmited and otlr|ersl ii. sri sai surya Gardens (P) Llmited v. union of India and another2 iii. K subba Raju o. Executiue Engineer, TLC Dittsion, AP? RANSCO and otherss iv. Deuisettg Ro;maswo:'rr';g a. The Chief Dnglneert v. Bommi Reddg Narasimha Reddg and' others a' Poutergrid corporatlon of India Ltmtted. and otherss L4.
We have taken note of the respective submissions advanced and the material on record. Consideration by this Court 15. In the present writ appeal the controversy arises in the context of execution of a large-scale transmission infrastructure project, that necessarily requires an examination of the . statutory scheme governing such projects, particularly the Electricity Act, 20o3, the works of Licensees Rules, 2006, and the powers conferred under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 16. It is pertinent to note that the 2003 Act read with the 2006 Rules constitutes a self-contained and exhaustive code governing the planning, approval and execution of transmission projects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where disputes involve technical, engineering and infrastructural considerations, the writ Court ought to exercise t (2ot7l5 scc 143 2 2004 (21 AUT 2s6 3 2010 (2l,U. P. L. J.
243 2013 (4) ALT 616 s 2013 SCC OnLine AP 1O08 restrailt under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the stertute provides for appropriate alternative remedies and special:sed forums. The approach adopted by the learned Single Judge, therefore, calls for no interference on the ground of j urisdic tional impropriety. L7. It is to be noted that by virtue of Section 164 of the 2OO3 Act, a transmission licensee is vested with all powers exercisable by a 't. elegraph authority' under the 1885 Act. Sections 10 to 16 of the 1885 Act confer wide statutory authoritl, to place and maintain transmission lines over, under or acrosis any land or property, subject to payment of compensirtion as contemplated under Section 10(d). 18. Further, Section 16(1) of the 1885 Act, empowers the District l\{agistrate to intervene where the exercise of powers urlder Ser:tion 10 is resisted or obstructed.
The said provision recognisesr the practical realities involved in execution of public utility pro. ,ects and enables the District Magistrate to permit the authority to proceed with the work, including by providing necessary administrative or police assistance. 19. In the present case, the District Collector, upon being satisfied about the statutory approvals and the public importance of the project, passed an order under Section 16(1) permitting :he 7ft respondent to carry out the works and to seek police assistance, if required, to prevent obstruction. The \ I I I ! l0 I I i ! I i learned Single Judge has rightly observed that such assistance, i ! I when rendered pursuant to a lawful order, cannot be i i I : characterised as arbitrary or high-handed. Thus, the statutory i scheme strikes a balance by preserving the landowners'right to compensation while ensuring that projects of"public importance are not stalled. 20..
On perusal of the material on record, it establishes that the 7ft respondent is a deemed transmission licensie under Section 14 of the 2003 Act and has obtained all requisite statutory approvals, including prior approval under Section 68(1), grant of transmission licence by the CERC, and authorisation under Section 164 uide Gazette Notification No. 578 dated 31. 01. 2025, which specifically includes Kadthal within its scope. : . Village 2L. The Honble Supreme Court in Indsll Hgdro Power & Manganese Ltd. v. State of Kerala and other* has held hereunder: 45. We are in agreement with the uiew of the State Gouernment, as accepted bg the High Court, that the Appellant wos not entitled to the grant of deemed generation sfafus as a mafter of ight. Similarlg, the. concessional power tariff which is applicable for a period of fiue Aears from 1994 to 1999 was ertended untit 20 Augast 2000. This is undoubtedlu a matter o. f policu and tle Hioh Court was justifi.
ed in coming to the conclusion that it is not open to the Court to foist a particalar measure of policu on the State. In uthat manner the State shoutd remedg the grieuance of the piuate inuestor is something uthich should be dulg considered bg the State Gouernment within the auailable framework of law and its own policg. (Emphasis supplied) 6 (2O2Ol L6 SCC 276 \ \ 1l 22. It. is to be noted that the contention of the appellants that the 7u, respondent undertook works without a valid licence is not borne out by the record. The licence was granted on 30. LO. 2t)24 and the subsequent authorisation under Section 164 onl5,fortified the powers already vested in the licensee. Any preliminary activities undertaken prior thereto were preparatory in naturt: and cannot be construed as illegal. 2g. Further, Rule 10 of the 2A06 Rules, obligates the licensee to condu,:t surveys, prepare plans and consider objections.
The documents produced by the 7rh respondent demonstrate complianr:e with these requirements. Therefore, the allegation that no technical or feasibility studies were undertaken is untenable. 24. It is also relevant to note that the principal grievance of the appellants relates to the alleged deviation from the approved alignment and the placement of certain Angle Points. The 7ft respondent. has categorically asserted, reference to the 'uvith approved e,lignment schedule, that the disputed Angle Points form part o[ the sanctioned route. 25.. It is well settled that in projects of this nature, minor adjustmentrs in tower locations or angle points owing to terrain, soil conditir>ns, safety clearances or logistical constraints are inherent an,1 do not amount to a substantive deviation from the _ . s. -approved ali! ffient. The appellants have not produced any . ;Jr:. t+*tE+.
, t2 independent technical material to demonstrate that the alleged changes alter the essential character or route of the transmission line. In the absence of such evidence, this Court would be slow to substitute its own assessment for that of technical experts. 26. The Apex Court in The Pouter Grid Corporation of India Limited (supra I/ has held as under: 21. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the Tetegraph Authority to place and maintain a telegraph line unde1 ouer, along or across and posts in or upon ang imntouable property. The orovision of Section 10(bl o-f the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it abundantlu clear that while acquiring the power to laA doutn teleoraph lines, the Central Gouernment does not acquire anu ight other than that of user in the propertu. Furtlrcr. Section lo(dl of the Indian Teleoraoh Act.
1885 obliqes the Tetearaph Autloritu to errcure tttat it causes as little damaae as oossible and that the Telearaph Autharitu shall also be obliged to paA full compensation to all oerson interested for anu damage sustained bu them bu reason o. f the exercise of those pouters. 23. We, thus, haue no hesitation in reiecting the argument of the writ Petitioner that the impugned action of the Power Grid utas contrary to the prouistors of the Electricitg Act, 2003. (Empluasts supplied) 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court tn Centre for hftllc Interest Littgation a. union of India o;nd othersT while reiterating the view taken in Federdtlon of Railutag OJficers Assn. a. Union of Indlaa has held hereunder: 20. Minimal interference is called for bg tle Courts, in exercise of judicial reuieut of a Gouemment policg when tle said policg is the outam. e of deliberations of the technical experts in the fields inasmuch a.
s Courts are not utell-eEtipped to fathom into such domain uhich is lefi to ttLe discretion of the exeantion. 'lzotoy 6 scc 4os 81zoos1 4 scc 289 , . ,i:; t3 24. A perusal of Annexure-ll, namely 'Petitioner-wi"se details uis-ri-uis Comperusation and Tou. ter Stahts - Tim,etine', d. iscloses the particulars of compensation paid to each of the appellants, along with the respective dates of such payment. Though it was contendt:d on behalf of the appellants that the compensation amounts were retunred, no material has been placed on record to subsftrntiate the said assertion. Significantly, the appellants have failt:d to furnish any particulars whatsoever regarding the alleged rr,fund, including the date of refund or the amount said to have been returned. In the absence of any supporting material, the said contention remains a bald assertion and cannot be accepted. 29.
It isr pertinent to note that the 2003 Act and the 2006 Rules pr<lvide for an efficacious statutory mechanism to vehtilate 6irievances relating to alignment, execution of works and comp<:nsation. In the instant case, the appellants have not demonstrated that such remedies are either illusory or inefficacious. Thus, their grievances essentially pertain to technical ;ild factual aspects which are better suited for \ \ adjudication by the competent authorities under the statute. 30. It is to be noted that the transmission line in question forms part of a major schem. e intended for evacuation of solar porvver from the Bidar Solar Enerry Zone. Such projects are of significant public importance and directly subserve national iii fl l4 objectives relating to energr and ener5r security.
^renewable While individual hardship cannot be lightly brushed aside, the private rights with statutory framework is designed to balance public necessity through safeguards of notice and compensation, which, in the present Case, have been duly observed. Conclusion 31. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has undertaken a proper appreciqtion of facts and law. The {indings recorded neither sufler from perversity nor disclose any illegality or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The order dated 25. 1L. 2O25 passgd" by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 2,3776 of 2025 is hereby affirmed. g2. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall sD/-P. C H. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGTSTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, cl 1. One CC to SRI T. SURYA SATISH; Advocate of lndia, High 2.
the REVENUE, High court for state of Telangana at 3. Two CCs to GP FOR Hyderabad. tOUTl Advocate' IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI MAYUR MUNDRA, 5. Two CD CoPies. BSK Y* ,, a HIGH COIURT DATED:0,510212026 i itlc i ,{o' -. J 'l ! 2 1 F[8 202fi * JUDGME]. IT * WA. No. 4 ctl 2026 DISMISSINIG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g . ,6"4 l+ ffiaa rit
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.