Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition against the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (WBSETCL) where the petitioners contended the violation of Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India due to installation of a High-Tension overhead line over the property to set up and run an educational institution for religious minorities and weaker sections of society, a single-judge bench comprising of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,* J., held that the installation of the High-Tension line does not constitute property acquisition under Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India and dismissed the petition, while allowing the petitioners to seek compensation through the appropriate legal channels.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner 1 is a registered company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 2013 dedicated to promoting educational opportunities, particularly for Christian minorities and weaker sections of society. Petitioner 1 is the owner of a plot of land, on which petitioner 2, a technical campus, was established to serve the educational interests of minority communities. It is approved by various universities and institutions.
The petitioners’ grievance is that the respondent, West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (WBSETCL), is installing a High-Tension overhead line over their property, obstructing their plan to establish educational institutions for religious minorities and weaker sections and violates Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners relied on Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India and contended that WBSETCL is violating their constitutionally guaranteed right. The petitioners cited the West Bengal Government’s Policy and Guidelines for setting up private universities, stating that unencumbered land is required, which would not be met if the High-Tension line continues.
The petitioners referred to the Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 540, emphasizing that Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is an absolute right intended to protect minority institutions. The petitioners also mention The Society of St. Josephs College case, which states that laws for compulsory property acquisition should ensure compensation that does not impair rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
Respondent’s Contentions
The respondent contended that rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India are not absolute and that the right to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21. It was asserted that the transmission line will serve the needs of many people and should not be halted for the convenience of a specific institution.
The respondent cited judgments where the right to electricity was linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondent also mentioned the Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143, stating that projects of national importance should not be stalled for minor inconveniences.
The respondent contended that 17 out of 20 towers have already been installed and a notification was issued before installation. It was claimed that the towers will not be on the petitioners’ property, but the lines will run above it at a significant height.
Moot Point
Whether drawing of High-Tension Line over the property amounts to “acquisition” of property at all?
Court’s Assessment
The Court acknowledged the interplay between Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India and other fundamental rights. The Court agreed that Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India does not prevent the State from acquiring property but emphasizes the importance of granting adequate compensation to minority institutions. The Court distinguished Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai (Supra), noting that Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India was introduced later and that the right under it is absolute.
The Court confirmed that the right to electricity is a component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized on the need to balance Article 30 of the Constitution of India with the overwhelming public interest.
“The High Tension transmission line is to cater to huge sections of society, in the locality and elsewhere, including the petitioners themselves, who would also be beneficiaries thereof.”
The Court observed that “the invocation of Article 30(1A) of the Constitution is misconceived in the present case, since the act complained of does not amount to any acquisition of the land at all.”
The Court interpreted the right of the transmission company under the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act, stating that drawing a High-Tension line does not amount to property acquisition. The Court held that it is premature for the petitioners to seek a route change for the electricity line, and compensation claims should be assessed later, when the work is complete.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the installation of the High-Tension line does not amount to property acquisition under Article 30(1A) of the Constitution of India. The Court dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioners to seek compensation from the District Judge if necessary.
[St. Mary’s Technological Foundation v. W.B. State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3052, order dated 25-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Utpal Das, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja and Mr. Sumit Roy, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
