M A ABDULLA Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 66 K.V. Edayar - Parur electricity tower lines pass through the properties of the petitioners which are situated in Alangad Village. Ext. P1 shows that the erection work thereof were carried out by the Kerala State Electricity Board in the year 1982. Presently, by Exts. P2 and P3 notices dated 27.2.2001, the petitioners have been advised by the first respondent - Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Edayar - that the trees, crops and buildings in the possession of the petitioners are liable to be removed, in connection with the opening of 110 K.V. Edayar - North Parur line. Of course there has been an offer for payment of compensation as might be assessed. The petitioners submit that the lines are being drawn parallel to existing 66 K.V. lines. It is alleged that their properties subjected to severe disablement are further being rendered useless and to their extreme disadvantage. Though petitioners had made representations highlighting their objections, no response had come. Since the petitioners had obstructed the work attempted to be carried out by the Board Officials, a crime also has been registered against them. The petitioners seek to interdict the proposed steps and in the Original Petition filed seek for directions to the respondents to consider the claims and contentions highlighted by Ext. P4, and further for arranging reference of the dispute to the second respondent - Additional District Magistrate.

(2.) It is also submitted that when the lines were drawn in 1982, they had not been offered any compensation whatever. The petitioners assert that unless compensation is paid, it is not permissible for the Board to draw electric lines through any properties of a third party. Relying on S.16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is submitted that when there is a resistance, the matter necessarily has to be placed before the District Magistrate for his decision. In view of the interim orders passed, the work has been temporarily stopped. In answer to the above submissions, reliance has been placed by the respondents on S.42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The project of the Board, as would be seen from the counter affidavit is to improve the transmission and distribution of electricity in the Ernakulam district. The 'System Improvement Scheme' as the project stands christened, is claimed to have been published in dailies dated 2.9.1999 (Ext. R1(a)). Ext. R1(b) is the copy of the Gazette notification. It is purported to be done as required under S.28(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. It is the case of the Board that once the Scheme is notified under S.28 read with S.42, the procedural formalities prescribed for drawing of lines, viz., those insisted by S.12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Electricity Act are no more to be taken notice of.

(3.) Along with the counter affidavit, circular issued by the Board dated 22.10.1998 also had been produced, whereunder the field officers were required to ensure publication as envisaged under Chap.5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, so as to avoid litigations and as a standard procedure.