- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 12131 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1 . EMMANUEL VINCENT D'SA, S/O IGNATIUS D'SA, AGED 69 YEARS, ATHRILL HOUSE, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 2 . HARISH SHETTY, S/O B MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED 61 YEARS, R/A 4-201, SAHANA NILAYA, COLLEGE ROAD, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 3 . JACINTHA LOBO, D/O LOUIS LOBO, AGED 71 YEARS, 3-143, HUDKUNJE HOUSE, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST SORNAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 4 . ALEXANDER SEQUEIRA, S/O LATE VOLARIAN SEQUEIRA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/A 4-31(1), GUARDIAN ANGEL, SORNAD HOUSE, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST SORNAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 5 . VICTOR LOBO S/O CHARLES LOBO, AGED 65 YEARS, R/A 3-126(5), MUKUDA HOUSE, POST AGRAR, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST SORNAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 6 . STELNI LOBO, S/O CHARLES LOBO, AGED 63 YEARS, R/A 3-126(5), MUKUDA HOUSE, POST AGRAR, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST SORNAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 7 . JOSEPH HILARY LOBO, S/O BAPTIST LOBO, AGED 51 YEARS, R/A 2-69, DEMBUDE HOUSE, POST SORNAD, ARALA VILLAGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 8 . ANTONY BAPIST PINTO, S/O AMBROSE PINTO, AGED 49 YEARS, R/A 2-108, SORNADU HOUSE, POST SORNAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 9 . ALBERT EVEJIN PINTO, S/O PETER PINTO, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A 2-100/1, SORNAD HOUSE, POST SORNAD, ARALA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 10 . WILLIOM PINTO, S/O AMBROSE PINTO, AGED 52 YEARS, 2-108/1, SHARON, POST SORNAD, ARALA VILLAGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 11 . ROY MARK CARLO, S/O LATE FELIX CARLO, AGED 53 YEARS, R/A 2-66/5, LORETTO HOUSE, AMTADY, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 12 . SANDEEP POOJARY, S/O SEENA POOJARY, AGED 38 YEARS, R/A 1-82, DARBE HOUSE, BANTWAL KASABA VILLAGE, POST BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 13 . ARUN ANIL D' SOUZA, S/O LATE LAZARUS D'SOUZA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/A 1-47 ATHREL HOUSE, POST AGRAR, PANJIKALLU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 14 . LILLY SEQUUIRA, WIFE OF ROBERT PINTO, AGED 72 YEARS, R/A 3-136(1), MUKUDA HOUSE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 15 . LANCY CARLO, S/O LATE SYMAN CARLO, AGED 51 YEARS, R/A 3-126, MUKUDA HOUSE, PANJIKALLU VILLAGE, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST SORNADU, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 16 . SANTHOSH JOY PINTO, S/O LATE PAUL PINTO, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 AGED 37 YEARS, R/A 2-76-2, ARBI HOUSE, POST SORNADU, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 17 . RAJESH ROHAN LOBO, S/O LEO LOBO, AGED 38 YEARS, R/A 2-71/1 DEMBUDE HOUSE, ARALA VILLAGE, POST ARLA, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 18 . NAGESH BANGERA, S/O BABU MOOLYA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/A 3/6 BARDEL HOUSE, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 19 . VLARIAN A MASCARENHAS, S/O L. MOURICI MASCARENHAS, AGED 70 YEARS, R/A 3-125 ACHARIKODI HOUSE, POST AGRAR, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 20 . RUPESH MASCARENHAS, S/O VELARIAN A MASARENHAS, AGED 29 YEARS, R/A 3-125 ACHARIKODI HOUSE, POST AGRAR, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 21 . HENRY THOMAS CARLO, S/O JACOB CARLO, AGED 88 YEARS, 3-145/1, MUKUDA HOUSE, POST SORNAD, PANJIKAL, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 22 . JOHN BAPTIST SEQUERA, S/O VALARIAN SEQUE RA, AGED 69 YEARS, 2-94/2, SOMAD HOUSE, ARALA VILLAGE, POST SORNAD, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 23 . CHARLES LOBO, S/O DOOJA LOBO, AGED 65 YEARS, 2-75/1, DEMBUDE HOUSE, ARALA VILLAGE, POST ARLA, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 24 . SEBESTION LOBO, S/O JOSEPH LOBO, AGED 79 YEARS, 2-72, DEMBUDE HOUSE, ARALA VILLAGE, POST SORNAD, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 25 . CHARLES SEQUERA, S/O KARMINA SEQUERA, AGED 65 YEARS, 3-131, MUKUDA HOUSE, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 26 . RONALD VAS, SON OF LEO CHARLES VAS, AGED 59 YEARS, 3-134(1), MUKUDA HOUSE, PANJIKAL VILLAGE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 27 . SILVESTER D'SOUZA, S/O GREGORI D'SOUZA, AGED 52 YEARS, 3-235, MADYAR HOUSE, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST AGRAR, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 28 . PAULIN D'SOUZA, WIFE OF LATE JOHN D'SOUZA, AGED 74 YEARS, 3-236, MADYAR HOUSE, MOTHER THERESA ROAD, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST BANTWAL, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 29 . PAELIN CRASTA, WIFE OF JEROM D'SOUZA, AGED 58 YEARS, 3-235, MADYAR HOUSE, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 30 . MARCEL D'SOUZA, SON OF SALWADORE D'SOUZA, AGED 60 YEARS, 3-15, MADYAR HOUSE, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 31 . KUSHALAKSHI, WIFE OF SANDEEP POOJARY, AGED 37 YEARS, 1-82, DARBE HOUSE, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 32 . ALBAN PINTO, S/O PLUS PINTO, AGED 69 YEARS, POST AGRAR, PANJIKALLU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 211. 33 . SANTHOSH DAVID MENEZES, S/O LAWRENCE MENEZES, AGED 39 YEARS, 1-154A(1), ATHREL HOUSE, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574211. 34 . JANARDHANA, S/O BABU MOOLYA, AGED 57 YEARS, 3-6 BARDEL HOUSE, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, POST BANTWAL, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 35 . KRISHNA NAIK S/O LATE NARAYANA NAIK, AGED 72 YEARS, 1-123 DARBEPALKE HOUSE, JAKRIBETTU, POST AGRAR, BANTWAL KASBA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 36 . JULIANA BARBOZA, D/O PASCAL BARBOZA, AGED 82 YEARS, 4-85, PANJIKALLU VILLAGE, POST SORNAD, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 37 . GANGADAR POOJARY, S/O MUTTAYA POOJARY, AGED 54 YEARS, 3-52, SRI GURU NIVASA KUTTIKALA, POST KARPE, ARALA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 38 . VISHWANATHA POOJARY, S/O MUTTAYYA POOJARY, AGED 59 YEARS, 2-52, BAILU HOUSE, POST KARPE, ARALA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. 39 . NELAYA POOJARY, SON OF MUTTAYYAPOOJARY, AGED 67 YEARS, KITTIKALA HOUSE, POST KARPE, ARALA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211. …PETITIONERS [BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE] AND: 1 . UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2 . THE CENTRAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (CEA ) A STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003, SEWA BHAVAN, R K PURAM,SECTOR- 1, NEW DELHI - 110 066. chair@nic.in or dchandra.cea@nic.in REP BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 3 . M/s UDUPI KASARGODE TRANSMISSION LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 - CIN NO.U40100DL2018G0I342365) AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT F - 1, THE MIRA CORPORATE SUITES 1 & 2, ISHWAR NAGAR, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110065, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR EMAIL secretarial.grid@sterlite.com - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 4 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY EMAIL prs-energy@karnataka .gov.in 5 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PORT ROAD, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001, EMAIL dc.mnglr@gmail.com 6 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU SUB DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR, HAMPANAKATTA, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575001 EMAIL ac.mlore@gmail.com 7 . THE TAHASHILDAR, BANTWAL TALUK, POST JODUMARGA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 574219 EMAIL tahbantwal@gmail.com 8 . KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, (KSEB), (A WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956) CIN U40100KL2011SGC027424 VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, KERALA STATE, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR EMAIL cmdkseb@kseb.in …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI SRINIVAS V. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT.VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R4 TO R7; SRI JOHN THOMAS, ADVOCATE FOR R8] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DECLARE THAT THE PRIOR APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CENTRAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, UNDER FILE No. CEA- PS-12-14(20)/1/2018-PSPA-II DIVISION DATED 18.01.2019, GRANTING PRIOR APPROVAL FOR LAYING OF UDUPI (UPCL) - KASARGODE 400 KV QUAD DIC TRANSMISSION LINE, AT ANNEURE- A IS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, VIOLATES ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(g), 21 AND ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND QUASH THE SAME B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DECLARE THE NOTIFICATION NO. F.NO. CEA-PS-12-14(21)/1/2018-PSPA-II DIVISION DATED 31ST AUGUST 2021 AND PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 14TH OCTOBER 2021, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CENTRAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY, UNDER SECTION 164 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, AT ANNEXURE-B, IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW ARBITRARY UNREASONABLE, PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, VIOLATES ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(g), 21 AND ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND QUASH THE SAME. C) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE NOTICES BEARING UKTL/2023-24/20240122/KATC/COM DATED 31.01.2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT INTIMATING THEM ABOUT THE PLACING THE UDUPI KASARGODE TRANSMISSION LINE OVER THEIR RESPECTIVE LANDS AT ANNEXURES-C TO C38. AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.08.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed for following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the prior approval granted by the 2nd respondent Central Electricity Authority, under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, under File No. CEA-PS-12-14(20)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division dated 18.01.2019, granting prior approval for laying of Udupi (UPCL) Kasargode 400 kV Quad DIC transmission line, at ANNEXURE -A, is arbitrary, unreasonable, passed without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India and quash the same; b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the Notification No. F. No. CEA-PS-12-14(21)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division dated 31st August 2021 and published in the Gazette of India dated 14th October 2021, issued by the 2nd respondent Central Electricity Authority, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, at ANNEXURE -B, is without authority of law, arbitrary, unreasonable, passed without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India and quash the same; c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the Notices, bearing UKIL/2023-2024/20240122/KATL/com/ dated 31.01.2024 issued Dearing UKIL/5033/2004/ 20140123/RATL/COM) to the petitioners by the 3rd respondent intimating them about the placing the Udupi Kasargode Transmission line over their respective lands, at ANNEXURES -C TO C38. d) Quash all further actions pursuant to ANNEXURES - A, B, C to C38 and also restrain the respondents from taking any further action in pursuance of prior approval granted under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, under File No. CEA-PS-12-14(20)/1/2018-PSPA-II Division granted by the 2nd respondent Central - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 Electricity Authority, at ANNEXURE A and also under Notification No. F. No. CEA-PS-12-14(21)/1/2018-PSPA- II Division dated 31st August 2021 and published in the Gazette of India dated 14th October 2021, issued by the 2nd respondent Central Electricity Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, at ANNEXURE - B. e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective land holdings, without authority of law. 2. Though, this matter was listed for hearing on Memo for dismissal of writ petition, it was taken up for disposal with consent of learned counsel. 3. Sri Shridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted, petitioners were agriculturists and owners of respective lands in Arala, Panjikallu, Bantwala Kasaba and Karpe villages of Bantwala Taluk, wherein they had grown arecanut, coconut and in some cases rubber plantations etc. for their livelihood. It was submitted, respondent no.1 was Ministry performing functions of Central Government under the Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act', for short), while respondent no.2 was Central Electricity Authority (CEA) constituted under Section 3 (1) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, since repealed and substituted with Section 70 of Act. And, Respondent no.3 was a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 2013, as a - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 Project Specific Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for implementation of Udupi - Kasaragod 400 KV Quad Double Circuit Inter-State Transmission Line ('Project', for short). 4. It was submitted, respondent no.8 was Company wholly owned by Government of Kerala carrying on business of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electricity in State of Kerala. It was submitted on noting power shortage in northern part of Kerala, respondent no.8, proposed drawing of 400 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Mysore in Karnataka to Kozhikode in Kerala. As, it was delayed due to environmental concerns and public resistance in Kodagu District, respondent no.8 had proposed present Project in alternative. 5. But, Mysore-Kozhikode Transmission Line became operational from 14.10.2015. Despite same, respondent no.8 pressed for implementation of Project ignoring opposition by respondent no.4 and KPTCL. It was approved on 04.01.2013, without much discussion without even considering alternatives such as underground cables or VSC based HVDC System for Project as proposed Pugalur (Tamil Nadu) - Trichur (Kerala) 2000 MW Transmission Line. It was also submitted, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 transmission line from Kozhikode to Kasargode, planned in year 2003 was abandoned on ground that route had thick plantation of coconut, rubber and arecanut, which would have to be cut for laying transmission lines. It was submitted, real reason was that full capital cost of said line had to be borne by respondent no.8 alone, as it was Intra-State Transmission Line. 6. It was further submitted, respondent no.1 had delegated its powers of prior approval for laying of overhead lines under Sections 68 and 164 of Act to respondent no.2 under order dated 12.02.2015. It was submitted, though Project was not mooted by Central Transmission Utility (CTU) as required under Section 38 of Act, respondent no.2 approved it without noting above factors in mechanical manner, which rendered it illegal. 7. It was submitted, acquisition of 'user right' over lands for drawing transmission lines under Indian Telegraph Act, would attract provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('RFCTLARR' Act for short) and procedures relating to land acquisition, consent, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement would also apply. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 8. It was submitted Section 68 of Act mandated prior approval of appropriate Government. It also permitted delegation of such power on Licencee or Power Generating Company. It was submitted, order of delegation of power dated 12.02.2015 and subsequent approval granted were challenged in WP no.20819/2021. Said petition was allowed on 29.03.2023, but challenged in WA no.560/2023 only by respondent no.3. In meanwhile, respondents no.1 and 2 took corrective measures by issuing order dated 09.06.2023. On 27.07.2023, appeal was allowed, order passed by Single Judge was set-aside and writ petition was dismissed. 9. It was submitted, while passing order, Division Bench noted that route alignment was yet to be finalized. Therefore, reserving liberty to petitioners to pursue remedy in law, in event respondent no.3 fixed route alignment over petitioners lands, appeal was disposed of. As respondent no.3 later issued notices about proposal for drawing of HT lines over petitioners' lands as per Annexure-C series, this writ petition was filed. 10. It was submitted, Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Jaisinh Parshottambhai Patel v. Essar Power Transmission Co.Ltd. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Guj - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 1202, had held application for grant of prior approval under Section 68 of Act was required to be accompanied with route of transmission line describing various parcels of land through which line was to pass, with map. And approval granted should be appended with map with modifications carried out after considering objections, if any, filed. It was submitted, said decision was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing Special Leave to Appeal (C) no.4276/2016 on 11.03.2016. 11. It was submitted, modified procedure for securing approval under Section 164 of Act mandated finalizing route of proposed transmission line prior to grant of authorization. It was submitted, due to non-finalization of route, Notification dated 31.08.2021 at Annexure-C was arbitrary without application of mind. It was contended, inclusion of some villages in Sullia and Puttur taluks, even though proposed route was not even close or passing through them substantiated contention. 12. On other hand, Sri Srinivas V. Raghavan, Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Rajeswar PN, learned advocate for respondent no.3, at outset, drawing attention of this Court to prayers sought and grounds urged in W.P.no.20819/2021, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 submitted that relief sought and grounds urged were verbatim repetition and therefore barred by principles of res-judicata. 13. Elaborating same, it was submitted, in WP no.20819/2021, petitioners had challenged order dated 12.12.2015 passed by Ministry of Power, delegating power of granting approval under Section 68 of Act to CTU; order passed by CTU on 18.11.2019 granting prior approval for laying Udupi (UPCL) - Kasargodu 400 KV Quad DIC Transmission Line; to quash all further and consequential orders and restrain respondents to take action in pursuance of order of approval, to restrain respondents from interfering with petitioners' possession etc. 14. In said writ petition, petitioners had urged very same contentions urged herein including placing reliance on ratio laid down in Jaisinh's case (supra) and about entitlement of compensation as per provisions of RFCTLARR. Though, said writ petition was allowed on 29.03.2023, when challenged by respondent no.3 in WA no.560/2023, appeal was allowed on 27.07.2023 and order passed in Writ petition was set-aside and writ petition was dismissed. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 15. It was submitted, SLP (Civil) no.35786/2023 filed by petitioners challenging order passed in Writ Appeal came to be dismissed on 12.01.2024. Thus, order dismissing WP no.20819/2021 attained finality. 16. It was submitted, while allowing appeal, Division Bench had held that interpretation and finding of learned Single Judge about Sections 68 and 164 of Act were erroneous and only liberty reserved to petitioners was, if in event, Project was implemented on land belonging to petitioners, they would be entitled for such remedy/relief as provided in law. 17. In this writ petition, petitioners were firstly challenging order of prior approval dated 18.01.2019 under Section 68 of Act for Project, once again. Along with same, petitioners had challenged notification dated 31.08.2021 issued under Section 164 of Act; notices issued to petitioners intimating them about transmission lines passing over their lands; for quashing of all further action in pursuance thereof and for restraining respondents from interfering with petitioners' peaceful possession over their respective lands. It was submitted, petitioners had by adding challenge to notification issued under Section 164 of Act and consequent notices, had sought to re- - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 invent very same contentions urged earlier. It was submitted, liberty reserved by Division Bench was virtually only to claim damages in event transmissions lines were laid over their lands. 18. It was submitted even WPs.no.3186/2023, 19432/2022, 4679/2023 and WP.no.1589/2023 raising concerns against Project, were disposed of reserving liberty to avail remedy under provisions of Sections 10(d) and 16(3) of Telegraph Act. It was submitted, insofar as issues other than delegation of power, this Court in WP no.13921/2023 considered and rejected same by order dated 06.08.2024. 19. It was further submitted, this Court in above writ petition had granted interim order on 25.04.2024 considering submission of learned counsel for petitioners that in an identical matter in WP no.13921/2023, an interim order was granted on 19.02.2024 restraining drawing of lines over petitioners' land. Said order when questioned in WA no.729/2024, same was stayed on ground that present writ petition would be hit by principles of res-judicata. It was further submitted, though dismissal of WP no.13921/2023 was questioned in WA no.1824/2024, no interim order was granted. In view of above, present writ petition would not be tenable and sought dismissal. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 20. It was submitted, at time of issuing notification, it would suffice for authorities to mention name of village over which transmission lines were proposed and it would not necessary to mention each and every land likely to be affected by Project. On above grounds sought dismissal of writ petition. 21. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 22. From above, it is seen alleging writ petition would be barred by res-judicata etc. respondents raised preliminary objections. 23. Petitioners' challenge against Project is, firstly, on ground that Section 38 (2) of Act, mandated submission of proposal for inter-state transmission line by CTU; secondly, on ground of validity of delegation of power under Section 68 of Act to CTU and thirdly, on ground that authorization under Section 164 of Act, could only be issued after finalization of route map for laying transmission lines. 24. Admittedly, grounds of challenge with reference to Sections 68 and 164 of Act, were earlier urged in WP no.20819/2021, which as noted above was dismissed by Division Bench in WA no.560/2023, reserving liberty to avail remedies under provisions of Telegraph Act, in case, after - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 finalization of transmission route over petitioners lands. Even contention about grant of authorization under Section 164 of Act, only after finalization of route and preparation of map based on observations in Jaisinh's case (supra) was also urged and deemed rejected. Thus, petitioners' challenge against Project on substantial grounds stood rejected. 25. When issuance of notices of intention to lay transmission lines over petitioners' lands as per Annexure-C series is only a consequential act, in pursuance of delegation of power, approval granted and authorization issued under provisions of Act, petitioners cannot claim that same had given fresh cause of action to urge very same contentions considered and rejected earlier. 26. Insofar as contention that with promulgation of Indian Telecom Act, 2025, there were two enactments governing same field and therefore, later Act would prevail, thereby annulling approvals/authorizations granted hitherto. A bare perusal of said Act would indicate that, it is enacted for governing a distinct area and would not overlap or eclipse provisions of Indian Telegraph Act. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 27. Insofar as claim for application of provisions of RFCTLARR even to 'user rights' under provisions of Telegraph Act, it is observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in KSEB v. Livisha reported in (2007) 6 SCC 792, that except right of user, Telegraph Authority would not acquire any right over land. Therefore, damages sustained while laying lines and due to diminution of value of land would require to be compensated. Thus, there would be no need for determination of compensation as per provisions of RFCTLARR. Therefore, said contention would not hold water. 28. It is also seen that after filing of this writ petition, petitioners had submitted, in similar writ petition i.e. WP no.13921/2023, this Court had granted interim order against Project. Incidentally, said writ petition was subsequently dismissed on 06.08.2024. Though, WA no.1796/2024 is filed, there is no interim order granted. 29. It is also seen that in WA filed against grant of interim order in WP no.13921/2023, Division Bench had observed that only recourse to petitioners, in terms of decision in WA no.560/2023, was to pursue claim for compensation under provisions of Telegraph Act. In fact, in WPs no.3186/2023, - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36939 WP No. 12131 of 2024 19432/2022, 4679/2023 and WP.no.1589/2023, disposed of on 27.10.2023, filed for restraining respondents from implementing Project, this Court has relegated them to avail remedies under Section 10 (d) and 16 (3) of Telegraph Act. Petitioners would not stand on any better footing. Consequently, on ground that present writ petition would be barred by principles of res-judicata/constructive res- judicata, petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*/AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60