ASIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Vs. ORISSA POWER TRANSMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking directions to O.P. No. 1-Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., represented through its Managing Director, O.P. No. 2-Superintending Engineer [E.H.T.(C) Circle] and O.P. No. 3-Asst. General Manager, EHT (C) Division of Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., not to make any construction of transmission tower/line within the premises of the Petitioner and to take a final decision regarding re-routing/re-alignment of the 220/132 KV Mendhasaal-Bidanasi over-head line within a stipulated time after completion of the profile survey by the Petitioner.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to the present writ petition are that on 30.01.1996 the Orissa State Electricity Board prepared and notified a Scheme for strengthening the transmission network in and around Chandaka (Bhubaneswar) command area and Bidanasi (Cuttack) command area. The Scheme was publicized and gazetted in terms of Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act, 1948') inviting objections from any person interested regarding execution of the Scheme within two months from the date of publication. The Scheme was duly concurred by CEA under Section 31 of the Act, 1948. Petitioner purchased the land in question by a sale deed dated 30.12.2005. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 72/06 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar and got an order of injunction on 26.04.2006 restraining O.P. No. 1-the Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, 'OPTCL') from making any construction in its premises. In F.A.O. No. 40/23 of 2006, the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Bhubaneswar allowed the appeal filed by the OPTCL and set-aside the order of injunction against which the present Petitioner had filed writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 14806 of 2008. In the said writ petition, this Court vide its order dated 21.11.2008 confirmed the aforesaid order of Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with aforesaid prayers. In Misc. Case No. 17732 of 2009, this Court by an ex-parte interim order dated 31.12.2009 restrained the OPTCL from constructing over-head line on the relevant portion of the suit land. Further, this Court on 04.01.2010 directed that the order of status quo dated 31.12.2009 would remain operative till appearance of the opp. parties.

(3.) At the outset, Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opp. parties 1 to 3 and Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor-Petitioner raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that Civil Suit No. 72/06 filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar seeking self-same relief is pending, and the Petitioner cannot take recourse to the present position. Further, this Court has already considered the issue relating to Petitioner's right to oppose construction of transmission line in W.P.(C) No. 14806 of 2008, which was dismissed on 21.11.2008. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot agitate the same issue in the present writ petition. It was also submitted that the Petitioner cannot acquire a better right than that of its vendor possessed at the time of transfer of ownership of the land in question. It cannot be said that while purchasing the land in question, the Petitioner was not aware of the Scheme and OPTCL's right. The OPTCL has completed almost whole of the work under the Scheme by 26.04.2006 except for two towers and over-head lines to be laid on a small portion of the land in question. OPTCL has already invested rupees nine crores. If it is prevented from making the aforesaid remaining construction of the transmission line, the power supply to entire Bhubaneswar, Khurda, Puri, Nimapara, Fulnakhara and Jagatsinghpur will be in jeopardy since such supply is now managed through one Circuit resulting not only low voltage but also precarious dependence on one Circuit. Mr. Panigrahi emphatically submitted that though after delivery of the judgment on 21.11.2008 there were no further negotiation/efforts between the parties to reach any settlement, yet the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the very same prayer which was claimed in the earlier writ petition and obtained interim injunction on 31.12.2009 in Misc. Case No. 17732 of 2009. The Petitioner relies on a joint verification of the parties made on 10.11.2008 (Annexure-11) which could not be fruitful and after that joint verification this Court dismissed the writ petition on 21.11.2008. After the order dated 21.11.2008, there is not a single scrap of paper to show that the opp. parties have ever taken any step for resolution beyond the order. Relying on the decisions of this Court rendered in Rabindra Bhoi v. Chief Executive Officer, Central Electricity Supply Utility and Anr., 2010 () O.J.R. 478, Sanwarmal Ram @ Agarwal v. Executive Engineer, E.H.T., GRIDCO, Berhampur, W.P.(C) No. 1000 of 2002 disposed of on 10.10.2002, Sanghamitra Biswal v. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 11408 of 2007 disposed of on 12.11.2007, Sri R. Ramudu Reddy v. State of Orissa and Anr., OJC No. 12732 of 2000 disposed of on 28.01.2002, Bairagi Charan Nayak v. State of Orissa and Ors., OJC No. 2868 of 1998 disposed of on 29.08.2000, Mr. Panigrahi vehemently argued that when a transmission line is to be drawn up under a Scheme and no objection has been filed by the concerned owner of the land at the appropriate time opposing the Scheme, the same cannot be stopped and at the most Petitioner is entitled to compensation as payable under the law.