GANGADEEN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to erect poles on Khasra No. 648/1 situate at village Bamhauri belonging to the petitioner for erecting service line for the purposes of supply of energy to the respondent No. 5 and for grant of such other relief/reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfurled are that the petitioner is the owner of the land situate on Khasra No. 648/1 in the village Bamhauri, District Satna wherefrom the electricity supply is likely to be erected for supply of electricity to the respondent No. 5. The petitioner submitted a representation to the SDO, Rampur the respondent No. 4 herein highlighting that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and Assistant Superintending Engineer, MPEB, respectively trying to erect electricity supply line by erecting poles on the land of the petitioner though there is no scheme for such a supply. It has been putforth that an agreement dated 11-8-1999 has been executed between the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are bent upon laying down the service line on the land of the petitioner. It is averred in the petition that the service line is to be erected for the supply of the electricity to the establishment of the respondent No. 5 as per agreement dated 11-8-1999 as a result of which the provisions enshrined under Sections 12 to 19 of the Indian Electricity Act are attracted and the said provision being obligatory whenever public streets railway and tram are not available it will be the duty of the licensee to make the land available for service to the respondent No. 2. According to the said provision it is the duty of the consumer to make the land available at his own expenses for the erection of service line. It is urged that loss relating to supply clearly provides that it is obligatory on the part of the consumer to make the land available for erecting of service line. It is the duty of the respondent No. 5 to purchase the land by private negotiation but same has not been done. It is averred that as the condition has not been satisfied the right of the petitioner has been affected and the grievance of the petitioner has not been looked into by the respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) THE respondent No. 5 has also filed a reply indicating that by virtue of Section 42(1) of Electricity Supply Act the MPEB has the power which the Telegraph authority possesses under part-III of Indian Telegraph Act for the purposes of execution of a sanctioned scheme. The clause (d) of the proviso to Section 10 stipulates that the telegraph authority shall pay full compensation to all the interested persons or any damage sustained by them by reasons of exercise of those powers. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 provides that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10. The dispute can be adjudicated by the District Judge. Thus the aforesaid reply only deals with the factum of grant of compensation and the manner as has been envisaged in law. The stand of the petitioner in respect of any aspect has not be disputed.