The Allahabad High Court has clarified that under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a District Magistrate (DM) is not obligated to act on every representation made by individuals affected by the installation of transmission lines. Instead, the DM is required to intervene only when the Telegraph Authority formally refers a matter for resolution.

This clarification came from a bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava. The case involved a petitioner who sought a writ of mandamus directing the DM of Aligarh to decide on his objection to the installation of high-tension wires on his land. The petitioner argued that the DM was obligated to address his representation under Section 16(1) of the Act.

However, the Court emphasized that the DM’s role under Section 16(1) is activated only upon a referral from the Telegraph Authority. The bench stated:

“We hold that the District Magistrate is not required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Act in every case where a person, on whose property the transmission line is being laid, raises an objection or files a representation before the District Magistrate. We are of the view that the District Magistrate is only required to pass an order under Section 16(1) when the Telegraph Authority refers a particular matter to the District Magistrate for passing an order therein.”

The Court also noted that if an individual is dissatisfied with the compensation provided for the installation of transmission lines, they have the right to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act to contest the adequacy of the compensation.

This ruling delineates the specific circumstances under which a District Magistrate is expected to act concerning objections to transmission line installations, thereby providing clarity on the procedural aspects of the Telegraph Act.

sources