JAGIR LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manoj Mishra, assisted by Sri Vishal Tandon for the petitioners. Sri Sobhit Dubey for respondents 2, 3 and 4, Sri B.B. Jauhari for respondent No. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally decided.

(2.) By this petition the petitioners have prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to dig/energise the electric line from over the land/building of the petitioners on plot No. 608, village Bhedpur. Tehsil Sadar, Pargana Jamour, District Shahjahanpur and further to quash the notice dated 7.7.2011 issued by respondent No. 4. Mandamus has also been prayed commanding the respondent not to dig any electric line over the land/building of the petitioners without obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur and such permission should only be granted after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

(3.) Brief facts of the case as emerged from pleadings of the parties are that the petitioners are recorded Bhumidhars of plot No. 608 situate in village Bhedpur, Post Rai Khera, Tehsil Sadan, Pargana Jamour, District Shahjanpur. Respondent No. 6 is operating an Amonia-Urea production facility at Shahjahanpur. The power requirement of the company is met by captive power generation. Respondent No. 6 company having surplus power generation submitted its offer for sale of surplus electricity to U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. It made a request to U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd, respondent No. 2 for grid connectivity for sale of surplus power through Open Access System. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. agreed for grid connectivity with the condition that respondent No. 6 will construct transmission line from its generating plant to the injecting point on its cost after depositing the supervision charges. After approval by U.P. Power Corporation, the laying of the transmission line began under the supervision of respondent No. 2. The towers were located by the respondent No. 2. The petitioners' case in the writ petition is that earlier the electric transmission line was not passing over the field of the petitioners but certain deviation was made in the route and line was shifted so as to pass over the plot No. 608 of the petitioners. A notice dated 27.6.2011 was issued by respondent No. 6 to the petitioners alleging that after completion of tower Nos. 21 and 22, the petitioners with an intent to create obstruction in the line have got two rooms constructed beneath the line, which is against the Electricity Rules. Executive Engineer of Electricity Transmission Division also gave similar notice dated 5.7.2011 to the petitioners asking the petitioners to remove their constructions. The petitioners claim to have sent a reply on 8.7.2011. Asstt. Director, Electricity Safety, Govt. of U.P. also issued a notice dated 7.7.2011 to the petitioners alleging breach of Rule 82 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Prescribed Authority Regulated Area/City Magistrate, Shahjanapur has also issued notice to the petitioners on 22.7.11 asking the petitioners to stop illegal constructions. Petitioners further case is that no consent was taken from them for laying transmission line over the petitioners' plot and the construction of two rooms were raised before the line was drawn. Petitioners further claim that they have raised objection vide their reply dated 8.7.2011 and the respondents ought not to have proceeded any further without obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.