K SUBBA RAJU Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TLC DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of the land to an extent of 7,647 sq. yards situated in Sy. No. 51/5 of Jaggarajupeta, Visakhapatnam District having purchased the same in the year 2007 under a registered sale deed. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in proposing to lay the basement for erecting electrical lines in the petitioner's property, he had earlier filed W.P. No. 15497 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 18.7.2008 granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate alternative remedy before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 793 of 2008. Having regard to the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority vide memo dated 11.9.2008 had advised AP TRANSCO to go for underground cabling, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 9.11.2009 disposed of the said Writ Appeal granting liberty to the appellant/the petitioner herein to make an appropriate representation to the AP TRANSCO to consider the proposal for underground cabling. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.12.2009 requesting the respondents 2 to 4 to go for underground cabling or in the alternative to pay compensation as per prevailing market rate. In response to the same, the 1st respondent - The Executive Engineer, TLC Division, AP TRANSCO - by letter dated 8.2.2010 informed the petitioner that the request of the petitioner to have underground cabling was not feasible and that the AP TRANSCO was proceeding with the overhead line works. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned action of the respondents is liable to be declared as arbitrary and illegal since the same is in violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also Indian Telegraph Act, 1910.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that laying of electricity supply line without the consent of local authority or of the owner or occupier of the land was impermissible under law.

(3.) I have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record, including the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.