PREMIER SYNTHETICS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board and its Officers to remove illegal over head 33000 Volts electric line from the petitioner's urban land bearing Plot No. 690, Khata No. 293, Tauzi No. 5855, Thana No. 17, Ward No.2 situated at Nasriganj under Danapur Municipality which was purchased by the petitioner for residential purpose. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay the cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass:The petitioner purchased the aforementioned land (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the land in question') by six registered sale deeds in the year 1983 for construction of house and accordingly, the petitioner is paying rent to the State of Bihar. It is stated that due to some unavoidable reason, the proposed building has not been built, however, the petitioner is trying to get the house constructed over the land in the shape of multi-storied building. The petitioner's further case was that in the first week of November, 1995, the petitioner got an information regarding unauthorised dumping of electric poles for installation and just after the said information, the Manager, Administration of the petitioner inspected the land in question and wrote a letter to the respondent No. 6 Assistant Electrical Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Patna on 13th November, 1995 stating inter alia for removal of electric poles immediately which were dumped on the plot in question. A copy of the said letter is Annexure-2 to the writ application. It was further stated that by letter dated 16th November, 1995, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No. 5, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division and requested him to remove the unauthorised dumping of electric poles lying on the petitioner's land, otherwise the petitioner will take legal action in the matter. Apart from the aforesaid letter, the petitioner alleged that the staff of the petitioner was always in touch with respondent No. 5 so that the matter can be sorted out easily. However in the first week of February, 1996, one M/s. Bindyabashini Private Ltd. in collusion with respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 fixed the electric poles at both end of the petitioner's land so that the electric connection may be passed over from the petitioner's land. As such, on 9th February, 1996 again the Manager Administration of the petitioner wrote letter to the respondent No. 5 with a request not to erect over head 33000 Volt line, being highly hazardous and dangerous. A copy of the said letter dated 9th February, 1996 is Annexure4 to this writ application. It is stated that on 12th February, 1996, the learned counsel for the petitioner along with staff of the petitioner, namely, Raghubansh Mishra, personally went to the office of the respondent No. 4 and informed about the matter and on such information, the respondent No. 4 assured that the over head line would not be passed over the petitioner's land and it would be passed through the sanctioned road. According to the petitioner, after the assurance given by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner was assured that now no over head electric line will pass over the petitioner's land. However, all of a sudden in the night of 1st March 1996, the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6, in collusion with each other, made over head electric connection through petitioner's land in order to oblige one M/s. Bindyabashini Private Ltd. who was establishing a factory. On seeing the aforesaid act of respondents Nos. 4 and 6, the petitioner filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Danapur Police Station for illegal over head electric wire connection over the petitioner's land without consent of the petitioner, as such, without obtaining permission from the Senior Electrical Inspector, Bihar under S. 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956. A copy of the aforesaid written report is Annexure-5 to the writ application. The petitioner, seeing the arbitrary and callous action of the respondents authorities, filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9th March, 1996 and on such filing, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing the petitioner's counsel called for a report from the respondent No. 5, fixing 11-3-1996. When the petitioner filed a written report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, a local Police Inspector inspected the plot in question and requested the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to remove the illegal installation of the over head electric wire but the proprietor of M/s. Bindyabasini Pvt. Ltd., namely, Krishna Singh instead of removing the illegal electrical wire over the petitioner's land, threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer and a non-formal F.I.R. was also lodged by the petitioner and a notice under S. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer but by the time the construction of 33000 Volt line to the Factory M/s. Bindyabashini Private Ltd. was already complete. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that due to illegal act committed by the respondent authorities, the petitioner was put in heavy loss and the petitioner, therefore, seeks an appropriate direction against the respondents for removal of over head electric line running over the petitioner's private residential plot.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 6, the Bihar State Electricity Board and its Officers. According to the respondents, M/s. Bindyabashini Private Ltd. had applied for energy in its premises for a load of 2000 K.V.A. and 200 K.V.A. in his premises. The premises of the consumer/ was inspected by the Officials of the Board and after considering the economic and other requirements of construction of 33 K.V. line and as the line was to pass through open rural area and crop fields, the nearest electrical route was adopted. The respondents further stated that except this factory, there are no residential houses around it and there are crop fields only spread all over and so the said route was adopted. The work was done as per the estimate sanctioned and the work order. The estimated cost of Rs. 3,72,940/- was charged from the consumer under Deposit Scheme 1995-96. A copy of the said scheme has been filed and marked as AnnexureA to the counter affidavit. The respondents further denied that any staff of the petitioner ever contacted the respondent No. 5. However on 9-2-1996, a letter from the petitioner was received reply of which was sent to the petitioner on 29-2-1996 with a request to visit the Office of respondent No. 5 to justify their stand but the petitioner did not turn up. The respondents further stated that the petitioner never gave any proof with respect to the land by the side of consumer's premises. Further more, the erection of poles and supply line was taken up as per the scheme and the estimate work done till March 1996 but during 5 months the owner of the land or his Manager never protested or contacted the concerned respondents. The respondents further denied the allegation of collusion or connivance of respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 with the petitioner. The respondents further stated that the requisition sent by the police for initiation of S. 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was dropped by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur on 12th March, 1996. It was further stated that the electrical installation of the factory has been charged on 9th March,1996 after due verification by the Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Bihar vide his letter dated 13th March, 1996 under Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 (hereinafter to he referred to as the 'the Rules of 1956'). A copy of the meter installation report dated 9-3-1996 and the letter of the Electrical Inspector dated 13-3-1996 are Annexures-C and D respectively to the counter affidavit. The stand of the respondent Board is that the Board is empowered under S. 42 of the Electricity Supply Act and Telegraph Act.