given their ordinary meaning. They have to be understood as defensive acts as pointed out by the Apex Court in Santosh Kumar (cited supra). Actual physical acts of omission and commission at site or on the spot, is not necessary to constitute resistance or obstruction, as held by the Supreme Court in C.C.E. vs. Paradip Port Trust. The method of resistance/obstruction adopted by people, vary from person to person depending upon their status, level of education, mental orientation and social upbringing. Therefore, any kind of objection or protest by the land owner would tantamount to obstruction/ resistance. Such an interpretation is necessary in view of the fact that the Telegraph Act is a colonial Act of preConstitutional days, which came to be adapted after the Constitution and which has come to be borrowed by the Electricity Act, 2003 to interfere and infringe upon the rights of owners of private property to their unhindered enjoyment. The Supreme Court pointed out in Dev Sharan vs. State of U.P. 2011 (4) SCC 769 that even the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is "a preconstitutional legislation of colonial vintage and is a drastic law, expropriatory in nature". Therefore, any interpretation to such enactments should conform to the Constitutional goals and rights. Despite the fact that the right to property is no more a fundamental right after the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, it is nevertheless a constitutional right under Article 300A. In several decisions, the Supreme Court has held that to hold property is not only a Constitutional right but also a human right. {see Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram 2007 10 SCC 448, Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel : 2008 (4) SCC 649, N. Padmamma vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy : 2008 (15) SCC 517, Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Major General Devinder Singh 2007 (9) SCC 67. Therefore, a dignified protest, even in the form of a formal letter, notice or telegram, would amount to obstruction within the meaning of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Once such a protest is lodged, the licensee should seek an order from the District Magistrate.”
