Maheshkumar Garodia, who lives in Ghatkopar area of the city, had filed a writ petition before the HC, saying seven transmission towers were erected by Kharghar-Vikhroli Transmission Limited (KVTL) on his land in Kanjurmarg “without any authority of law'”.

A division bench of justices A S Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain said, “The work of laying the transmission towers has been found to be in public interest, especially since it was permitted to be carried out after seeking leave of this court in terms of the directions issued in Bombay Environmental Action Group.”

Considering the nature of the work undertaken, the judges said, they did not feel it would be in the public interest to direct the removal of the transmission towers now to restore the petitioner's land to its original position.

KVTL was granted the work of setting up a 400-KV receiving station and laying of associated transmission towers for strengthening Mumbai’s transmission system after obtaining all requisite permissions.

It was required to instal 47 transmission towers of which seven were to be located on the land leased in favour of the petitioner. Of these seven towers, five occupied an area of 1,250 square metres, about 13,400 square feet, the petition said.

The petitioner claimed that he was restrained from causing any obstruction to the laying of the transmission towers by an order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector and Additional District Magistrate (RDC and ADM) on May 3, 2023.

The Collector and District Magistrate, Mumbai Suburban District, on June 26, 2023, revoked the restraining order, holding that the RDC and ADM had no jurisdiction to pass such a directive.

But prior to June 26, the work of laying the transmission towers was carried out by KVTL.

Senior advocate Shyam Mehta, appearing for the Ghatkopar resident, submitted that the towers have been erected by restraining the petitioner on the strength of an order that was clearly without jurisdiction.

Thus, the petitioner urged the court to grant him appropriate relief.

KVTL, through senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, opposed the petition, on the grounds that as a licencee, it was empowered to lay down the transmission towers.

The company was entitled to carry out the work, without any obstruction by an occupier, on valid permissions being granted to it, the advocate submitted.

It was not necessary for a licensee to obtain consent of an occupier and what was necessary was merely furnishing of the information that such work was intended to be carried out, he contended.

Ordinarily, the court observed, the aggrieved party would be “entitled to be put back in the position it was prior to passing of such order”. However, it cannot be an absolute proposition and factual situations would need to be kept in mind.

It was of the opinion that prayer for restoration to the prior position “need not be issued” if larger public interest militates against the grant of such direction.

“Considering the nature of the work undertaken, we do not feel that it would be in the public interest to direct the said transmission towers to be now removed to restore the petitioner's lands to their original position," the court said.

The bench, however, said that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court to seek compensation.