- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.38412 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. TALLIHALLA KRISHNEGOWDA PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE T.A. KRISHNEGOWDA, NAKUL ESTATE, TALLIHALLI GRAMA, JAKKANAHALLI POST, VASTHAARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK – 577101. 2. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O C.B. MALLEGOWDA, R/O NO.1045, 5TH MAIN, D BLOCK, NEAR NAVARANG THEATRE, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560010. 3. K.PANISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE K. LAXMIPATHI BHAT, R/O NO.301, PRASHANTHI SAROVAR, BEML 3RD STAGE, NEAR RELIANCE SMART, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560098. 4. SMT. UMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O SRI RAJA .P R/O NO.731, 4TH E MAIN, 10TH CROSS, WOC ROAD, NEAR MODI HOSPITAL, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH – 560086. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 5. T.M. RASHTRITH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O T.D. MALLESH, R/O AGALAGANDI ESTATE, TALLIHALLI GRAMA, VASTHAARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK – 577101. 6. D. RAGUNATH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O K.D. DEVEGOWDA, R/O NO.62, BOMBAILU ESTATE, ANOOR POST, VASTARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577101. 7. K.P. RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA K.D., R/O HALLIHITHLU VILLAGE, ANOOR POST, VASTARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577101. 8. K.T. DEVARAJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE THIPPEGOWDA, R/O KATRUMANE, JAKKANAHALLI POST, VASTARE HOBLI, THALIHALLI GRAMA, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE H6P9+377, JOR BAGH RD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 LODI COLONY, NEW DELHI, DELHI – 110003. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, ROOM NO.3317-317A, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560001. 3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.448, 4TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 4. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR KAVERI BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560009. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), PROJECT WORKS DIVISION, MALANDUR DIVISION, PRASARNA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN-573201. 6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKMAGALURU DISTRICT FIELD ROAD, VIJAYA NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU, KARNATAKA-577101. 7. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED BY HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) 3RD FLOOR, CHANAKYA BHAWAN, CHANAKYA PURI, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 NEW DELHI-110021, INDIA. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 8. NATIONAL TIGER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY B-1 WING, 7TH FLOOR, PT. DEENDAYAL ANTYODAYA BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110 003. REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 9. NATIONAL TIGER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (REGIONAL OFFICE) DORESANIPALYA FOREST CAMPUS, AREKERE MICO LAYOUT, JP NAGAR 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 076. REP. BY ITS ADDL. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF FORESTS (AIGF). 10. BHADRA TIGER RESERVE, CHIKMAGALUR-577101. REPRESENTED BY FIELD DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-7 TO R-9; SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP, FOR R-2, R-3, R-6 & R-10; SRI S. SRIRANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & C/R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 IN DC CKM REVOACQ(LAQ)184/2025, AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDER’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed calling in question the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, whereby the objections submitted by the petitioners against the establishment of 2x12.5 MVA, 66/11 KV Substation at Mallandur and laying of the associated 66 KV transmission line from Aldur Substation have been rejected and permission has been accorded to proceed with the project. 2. The petitioners claim to be the agriculturalists and owners in possession of various extent of agricultural land situated in Thalihalla, Anoor, Basagodu and surrounding villages, which fall within the buffer zone of Bhadra Tiger Reserve. It is their case that they have been cultivating coffee, pepper, areca and other crops and are dependent on the said lands for their livelihood. According to the petitioners, officials of respondent No. 4 entered their lands without notice, conducted measurements and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 initiated steps for laying transmission lines, culminating in the impugned order permitting the project. It is further stated that though earlier writ petition had resulted in a direction to consider the objection of the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner without properly appreciating the objections, without ensuring compliance of environmental and wildlife laws, has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the impugned order and consequential relief. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vighneshwar S Shastri appearing for the petitioners would contend that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory mandate governing environmental protection and wildlife conservation. It is submitted that the project falls within the buffer zone of Bhadra Tiger Reserve and any activity affecting such area necessarily requires prior approval under the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (‘the Act, 1972’ for short) as well as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 other environmental enactments. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner, exercising powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘the Act, 1885’ for short) could not have granted approval for execution of the project by passing such mandatory statutory requirements. 3.1. It is further contended that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing and the objections submitted by them have not been duly considered. It is submitted that the action of entering the land, conducting survey and proceeding with the project without proper notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also urged that the project would result in a large scale destruction of plantations, adversely affect the livelihood of the petitioners and cause irreparable ecological damage in a sensitive buffer zone. It is contended that the reliance placed on the exemption under the EIA notification is misconceived and that environmental clearance, forest clearance and wildlife clearance operate in distinct fields. It is contended that the failure to consider the alternative - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 alignments and the principle of “least damage” renders the action arbitrary and unsustainable. 4. Per contra, Sri S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 7, 8 and 9 would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable and is devoid of merits. It is contended that the averments relating to ownership, cultivation and livelihood are wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of the legality of the impugned order and are made only to evoke sympathy. It is further submitted that the respondents have a limited role confined to policy advisory and supervisory functions under the Act, 1972 and they are neither executing or sanctioning authority for project in question. The National Tiger Conservation Authority has not independently granted clearance but only renders advice or recommendation in appropriate cases through National Board for Wildlife. It is contended that there is a clear statutory distinction between core areas and buffer zones. While core areas are required to be kept inviolate, buffer - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 zones permit regulated development activities aimed at existence of wildlife and human habitation. It is therefore submitted that the allegation of violation of wildlife laws are misconceived and that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5, Sri S. Sriranga, would contend that the KPTCL is a transmission licence empowered under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Act, 2003’ for short) and the provisions of the Act, 1885, to lay transmission lines and erect towers in public interest. It is submitted that the project in question is a public utility project undertaken to augment power supply in rural areas facing acute voltage problems. It is further contended that the alignment of transmission line has been finalized after detailed technical surveys and feasibility studies and cannot be altered at the instance of an individual land owner. It is submitted that the project has been duly notified, undertaken following statutory procedures and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 impugned orders has been passed after considering the objection of the petitioners pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no acquisition of land and only a right of user is exercised, and any damage caused is compensable in terms of statutory provisions. It is also contended that no prior environmental clearance is required for the project as per the applicable notification and the project does not encroach upon the forest land. It is further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. The primary challenge of the petitioners is on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and alleged violation of environmental and wildlife laws. It is required to be noted that contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned action is in violation of the environmental laws and provisions of Act, 1972 cannot be adjudicated in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 present proceedings in the manner sought. The grievance projected by the petitioners is essentially individual in nature, arising out of an alleged interference with their respective lands and apprehended impact on the agricultural activities. Such individual grievances cannot be expanded into a larger public law challenge touching upon alleged violation of environmental or wildlife statutes, particularly in the absence of foundational material, demonstrating any specific statutory infraction. The distinction between core areas and buffer zones, as rightly contended by the respondents, indicates that regulated development activities are permissible in buffer areas and the petitioners have not established any express statutory prohibition. If at all according to the petitioners there is substantial violation of the environmental or wildlife law, the same is required to be agitated in appropriate proceedings and not in a petition predominantly premised on individual rights. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 7. The grievance regarding non-consideration of the objections also does not merit acceptance. The records disclose that the objections were invited and considered pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court, and the Deputy Commissioner has taken a decision after such consideration. The scope of judicial review in such matters is limited and this Court would not sit in appeal over technical and administrative decisions relating to alignment and execution of infrastructure projects, particularly when undertaken in public interest. 8. Further the contention relating to livelihood, agricultural activities and personal hardship though sympathetic, do not constitute a ground to invalidate a statutory action undertaken for a public purpose, especially when the law provides for compensation for the damage caused. The balance between the individual inconvenience and larger public interest has been duly considered by the authority. In these circumstances, this Court finds no arbitrariness, illegality or procedural - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19793 WP No. 38412 of 2025 impropriety in the impugned order, warranting any interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following : ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52