GANGADEEN Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

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 No. 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 put forth that an agreement dated 11 -8 -1999 has been executed between the respondent No. 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 section 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 I he 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 petition has not been looked into by the respondent 2 and 3.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 contending, inter alia, that the MPEB had prepared a sanctioned scheme which was duly published in the M.P. Gazette dated 2 -5 -1997 under section 28 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The said notification was also published in the news paper having local circulation. It is put forth that on 132 KV single branch line of M/s Prism Cement of the length 5 Kms was also one of the sanctioned scheme mentioned therein. In the aforesaid sanctioned scheme the Board was not to incur any capital expenditure and the expenses to be incurred were to be borne by the M's Prism Cement. The Board, therefore, prepared an estimate of the expenditure involved therein which came to Rs. 71.02 lacs. Since the expenses were to become by M/s Prism Cement Ltd. it was specified as a deposit work in the notification itself and it did not constitute the estimated capital expenditure upto 2046 crores as specified in the notification. A copy of the scheme has been brought on record as Annexure R -1. Under the said scheme, two towers and the supply lines were to be erected on the land of Surya Pratap and Udairaj who are brothers. Since the Prism Cement did not want the line to be laid it in order to wriggle out of its contractual obligations, both Surya Pratap and Udairaj Singh being instigated by the respondent No. 5 filed various litigations and obtained stay orders. They succeeded partly in delaying the laying of line but this Court rejected their contentions. The Prism Cement, itself filed the writ petition in which this Court directed the Board to draw the line. Having failed in their design to install the line the said company filed the present petition at the instance of the petitioner on the similar grounds which have been rejected by this Court in the case of Udairaj Singh and Surya Pratap Singh. According to the respondents the expenditure involved in the sanctioned schemes is below the sum of rupees 100 Crores as specified by notification by the Central Government under section 29(1) of Supply Act. It is also averred that the respondents 2 and 3 moved an application before the District Magistrate under section 16 of the Telegraph Act read with section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act and had obtained necessary order for laying down the lines. It is put forth that the tower has four legs each legs covering an area 3/2 ft and 3/2 ft. The space in between the legs can be used. The overhead lines passing over the land does not in any way interfere with the use of land below it. The one tower which falls on the land will not in any way disturb the agricultural operation carried out by the petitioner. The supply line has been drawn as per the agreement with the respondent No. 5. It is also put forth that the provisions of sections 12 to 19 would not apply and the Board has a right under section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act equivalent to the power of Telegraph Authority as laid down under the Telegraph Act. The line drawn is under a sanctioned scheme and the petitioner is only entitled for compensation which was determined by the Revenue Authority and the amount of compensation was offered to him vide letter dated 15 -6 -2001 but the petitioner did not come to collect the same nor did he dispute the amount of compensation. According to the said respondents the petitioner's right is no way infringed and he is not entitled to any relief.