ILLUMINATI BUILDING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD THR ITS DIRECTORversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                                              910_WP6653_26.doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                   WRIT PETITION NO.6653 OF 2026

                               Illuminati Buildings Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through
                               its Director Paras Rajesh Desai                           …   Petitioner
                               Vs.
                               State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary
                               and others                                                …   Respondents

                               Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Aniket Kanawade and Mr .Vaibhav Thorve i/b.
                               Mr. Vivek Thakare and Mr. Suraj Chakor for Petitioner.
                               Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP for Respondents Nos.1 to 3-State.
                               Mr. Siddhartha Joshi a/w. Mr. Devesh Juvekar, Ms. Kavita Brid-chavan,
                               Ms.Honey Chandnani and Ms. Shivangi Goel i/b. Rajani Associates for
                               Respondent No.4.

                                                           CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                                   SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                           DATE       : OCTOBER 06, 2026

                               P.C. :
                               .        Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
                               petitioner, Mr. Kamble, learned AGP for the respondent-State and
                               Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.4.

                               2.       By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to
                               the respondents not to acquire or take possession of subject property
                               located at Gat No.20, Village - Munguste, Taluka - Wada, District -
                               Palghar in the process of erection of towers for installing electricity
                               transmission lines. Alternatively, the petitioner has prayed for a direction
                               to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner under the
                               provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
                               Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013)

                               3.       Although the aforesaid prayers have been made in the present writ

MINAL
SANDIP
PARAB
         Digitally signed by
         MINAL SANDIP PARAB
         Date: 2026.10.06
         18:20:16 +0530
                                                                                                           1/6
                                                              910_WP6653_26.doc



petition, at the time of oral arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the prayer for compensation under the Act of
2013 is not being pressed and the focus of the challenge in the present
petition is on the alignment of the transmission line as it passes overhead
the subject property of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner
intends to establish an industrial estate on the subject property and
passing of the electricity transmission lines overhead would result in
obstruction in the said proposed activity of establishment of industrial
estate by the petitioner. By referring to the provisions of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 (Telegraph Act), particularly Section 10(d) thereof,
it is submitted that respondent No.4 is statutorily mandated to carry out
the aforesaid exercise of erecting the towers and installing the electricity
transmission lines in such a manner that it does as little damage as
possible to properties, which would be affected by such activity. It is
submitted that although the fact that the project of laying down the
electricity transmission lines can certainly be said to be in public
interest, the damage that may be caused to private entities like the
petitioner cannot be ignored.

4.    It is submitted that the public notice issued in the present case
only referred to villages through which the electricity transmission lines
would be installed and practically, there was no opportunity for the
petitioner to point out to the respondent No.4 that a minor adjustment in
the alignment of the towers would avoid the damage that would be
caused to the property of the petitioner. In this regard, reliance is placed
on report dated 19.06.2026 given by an expert. It is contended that the
said report also confirms the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner
that relocation of only one tower by about 80 to 120 meters would avoid
the transmission line going overhead the subject property of the
petitioner. It is therefore, submitted that this Court may consider issuing
such a limited direction to the respondents, particularly respondent No.4,

                                                                           2/6
                                                              910_WP6653_26.doc



in the interest of justice. It is also indicated that in such matters, the
compensation would always be illusory, for the reason that the damage
that would be suffered by the petitioner would be far more as the whole
purpose of acquiring subject property for establishing the industrial
estate is likely to be frustrated.

5.     The learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4
referred to the relevant statutory provisions i.e. Sections 10 and 16 of the
Telegraph Act as also the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that
context, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 relied upon judgement
of the Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited, (2017) 5 SCC 143;
judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Energy
Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Ratilal Maganji Brahmbhatt
(Barot) (judgement and order dated 06.11.2020 passed in R/Letters
Patent Appeal No.534 of 2020) and judgment of this Court in the case
of Yeshwant Hari Gawas and others Vs. Union of India and others
(judgement and order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition
No.1407 of 2024).

6.     By placing reliance on the said judgements, it is submitted that the
only limited relief that affected parties like the petitioner herein can
claim, is compensation as per the provisions of the Telegraph Act and
two Government Resolutions issued by the Government of Maharashtra
i.e. Government Resolutions dated 02.11.2022 and 01.12.2022.

7.     It is submitted that the process of marking of transmission route
of the electricity transmission lines and in that context, the erection of
towers and installation of electricity transmission lines is a complicated
technical activity, which requires highly specialized and technical
decisions to be taken by experts. In such a situation, it is submitted that
if the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are accepted, it would

                                                                           3/6
                                                               910_WP6653_26.doc



lead to a situation where all or any of the parties affected by the
installation of the electricity transmission lines would approach the Writ
Court for similar reliefs, which would eventually have a detrimental
effect on the aforesaid project of installing electricity transmission lines
in public interest. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the
aforesaid project proposes to bring 7 GigaWatt of electricity to the State
of Maharashtra from the State of Gujarat and it being a project of public
interest, this Court may not consider the relief sought by the petitioner.

8.     Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, we find that
although the writ petition claims reliefs that are wide-ranging, including
a direction to the respondent authorities to determine and pay
compensation under the Act of 2013, at the stage of oral arguments, the
limited relief being pressed on behalf of the petitioner is a direction to
the respondent No.4 to realign one of the towers so that the electricity
transmission lines do not pass overhead the subject property of the
petitioner.

9.     During the course of arguments, it is conceded that the provisions
of the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act cannot be said to be
unconstitutional and that the aforesaid judgements, upon which the
respondent No.4 has relied, indeed lay down the position of law
indicating that the respondent No.4 is well within its powers to establish
electricity transmission lines in terms of the provisions of the said
Legislations.

10.    But much emphasis has been placed on Section 10(d) of the
Telegraph Act. Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act reads as follows:-
       “10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain
       telegraph lines and posts.-The telegraph authority may, from
       time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over,
       along, or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable
       property:


                                                                            4/6
                                                                910_WP6653_26.doc



       Provided that-
       (a) to (c)   *                     *                    *
       (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section,
       the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible,
       and when it has exercised those powers in respect of any
       property other that that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full
       compensation to all persons interested for any damage
       sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.”

11.   We find that the respondent No.4 is indeed enjoined to undertake
the activity of establishing electricity transmission lines in such a
manner it does as little damage as possible to the parties whose
properties would be affected by such electricity transmission lines.

12.   We have perused the material placed on record. We find that the
respondent No.4 is duly authorized to undertake the aforesaid project.
The material on record also shows that public notices were issued as far
back as in the year 2024 with regard to the proposed establishment of the
electricity transmission lines. The contents of the reply affidavit from
paragraphs 17 to 25 indicate the extremely specialized and technical
decisions that are required to be taken when deciding upon the route and
alignment of such electricity transmission lines. We find substance in the
contention of respondent No.4 that when such decisions are taken, the
emphasis is on technical feasibility of establishment of such routes for
electricity transmission lines in terms of the requirements of the relevant
statutes. In such a situation, objections or specific requests of individuals
obviously cannot be entertained. It can also not be disputed that the
aforesaid project is in larger public interest, as about 7 GigaWatt
electricity would be brought into the State of Maharashtra through the
aforesaid electricity transmission lines. In such a situation, the properties
of private entities are bound to be affected and unless it is shown that
either the route of the electricity transmission lines is technically not
feasible or that mala fide can be attributed to the respondents in taking


                                                                             5/6
                                                              910_WP6653_26.doc



decisions pertaining to the finalization of such route, the Writ Court
would not be able to entertain challenges to such activities undertaken in
public interest by the respondents.

12.     The Writ Court is not equipped to consider the report of the expert
upon which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner to claim that
shifting of one of the towers would result in a solution as the electricity
transmission line would no longer pass overhead the property of the
petitioner. We are of the opinion that such highly technical decisions in
such matters are best when left to the experts, who have already taken a
decision and that not only the route has been finalized but as on today, as
a matter of fact, the towers have been erected and the electricity
transmission line has been installed overhead the property of the
petitioner. In such a situation, we find no substance in the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner and we decline to grant any relief in the
present petition. However, the petitioner is entitled to just, fair and
reasonable compensation as per the statutory provisions and the scheme
contemplated in the aforementioned Government Resolutions issued by
the Government of Maharashtra.

13.     The respondents are directed to ensure that such compensation is
determined and disbursed to the petitioner in accordance with law.




(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                       (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Minal Parab



                                                                           6/6