- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38381 WP No. 21589 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 21589 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: MR. ROSHAN RAI, S/O SEETHARAMA RAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BANNURU KATTE, BANNURU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANTWAL SUB DIVISION, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K DISTRICT - 574 211. 4. M/S. STERLITE POWER UDUPI - KASARGOD POWER TRANSMISSION LTD., F-1, MITRA CORPATE SUIT 1 and 2 Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38381 WP No. 21589 of 2025 EASHWAR NAGAR, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 065, REG. UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003. 5. CHIEF MANAGER, UDUPI - KASARGOD POWER TRANSMISSION LTD., HOUSE NO.13-131, OLD NO.7/117 ITI COLONY, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD, STATE OF KERALA - 671 123. 6. THE IN CHARGE OFFICER UDUPI - KASARGOD POWER TRANSMISSION LTD., ABCO TRADE CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR, NH-66, KOTTARA CHOWKI, MANGALURU - 575 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI RISHABHARAJ THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.06.2025 AT ANNEXURE-K AND RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 NOT TO PUT ANY TRANSMISSION PILLARS OR POST OR CROSS ELECTRICITY HIGH TENSION WIRES IN THE PETITIONER LAND AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ON B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38381 WP No. 21589 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 to 6 to consider petitioner's representation at Annexure-K. 2. Sri Lethif B., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is owner of Sy.no.416/4 and 416/6 of Kasaba village, Vitla Hobli, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, over which respondents were drawing 400 KV Overhead Transmission Line from Udupi to Kasaragodu. And that, petitioner had submitted representation to respondents as per Annexure-K stating that above mentioned lands were purchased by him under registered Sale Deed dated 15.05.2023, converted for commercial purpose and petitioner intended to put up commercial building. It was further submitted, adjacent owner had consented for installation of tower and passing of transmission lines over his property and in case, respondents were to consider same and shift lines, petitioner's property would be saved. It was submitted, representation was submitted on 30.06.2025 and had remained without consideration. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38381 WP No. 21589 of 2025 3. On other hand, learned AGA for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Rishabharaj Thakur, learned counsel for respondents no.4 to 6 opposed writ petition. 4. It was firstly submitted, Udupi-Kasaragodu transmission lines was approved in year 2019. Petitioner having purchased property in year 2023, had walked into project. It was submitted, drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines had commenced in year 2023 and entire route was finalized. It was submitted, as there was obstruction, respondent had approached District Magistrate under Section 16 (1) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short) as per Annexure-L filed along with rejoinder. It was submitted, District Magistrate was in midst of consideration of said petition and in case of any grievance, petitioner could approach District Magistrate. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records. 6. From above, it is seen that petitioner's grievance espoused in writ petition is about non-consideration of his representation at Annexure-K. Writ petition was filed on 07.07.2025 within one week, after submitting representation. It - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38381 WP No. 21589 of 2025 is settled legal position that writ of mandamus sought without providing reasonable period of time even for respondents to consider representation would be untenable. However, it is brought to notice of this Court that respondents have approached District Magistrate with petition under Section 16 (1) of Act and proceedings are in vogue. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct petitioner to participate therein, substantiate his concerns along with relevant records/documents, which could be examined. 7. Ordered accordingly. Writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to file representation before respondent no.2 within period of two weeks from today by appending all necessary records/documents and respondent no.2 to consider same, after giving opportunity to respondents no.4 to 6, within period of two weeks thereafter. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40