In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the role of the District Magistrate (DM) under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Court held that the DM is not mandated to pass orders on representations from landowners affected by the installation of transmission lines unless the Telegraph Authority refers the matter to the DM. This decision underscores the limited scope of the DM's involvement in such matters.
The case arose when a petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the DM of Aligarh to decide on his representation against the installation of a high-tension transmission tower on his land. The petitioner contended that the DM was required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Act in every case where an objection was raised. The petitioner relied on previous judgments, including Jagir Lal v. State of U.P., which suggested that the DM could exercise his power either suo motu or upon a request made by the Telegraph Authority or the landowner.
In contrast, the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, representing the Telegraph Authority, argued that the DM's role was contingent upon a referral from the Telegraph Authority. They emphasized that the DM was not obligated to act on individual representations unless the matter was formally referred to him.
The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava examined the legal provisions and the precedents cited. The Court noted that Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act empowers the Telegraph Authority to lay down telegraph lines or posts over private property. However, if any person entitled to the property objects to the installation, they may apply to the DM for an order directing the removal or alteration of the telegraph line or post. The Court observed that the DM's involvement is not automatic but is contingent upon a reference from the Telegraph Authority.
The Court further clarified that the DM is not required to pass an order under Section 16(1) in every case where a person raises an objection. The DM's duty to act arises only when the Telegraph Authority refers the matter to him for a decision. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent behind the provision, ensuring that the DM's role is exercised judiciously and not in a routine or mechanical manner.
This ruling has significant implications for landowners and the Telegraph Authority. Landowners seeking redressal for grievances related to the installation of transmission lines must understand that the DM's intervention is not guaranteed unless the matter is referred by the Telegraph Authority. On the other hand, the Telegraph Authority is reminded of its responsibility to refer matters to the DM when necessary, ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's decision delineates the specific circumstances under which the District Magistrate is required to intervene under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. By emphasizing the conditional nature of the DM's role, the Court has provided clarity on the procedural aspects of dealing with objections to the installation of telegraph lines over private property.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.