Delhi High Court
Jayant Gas Service & Ors. vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 30 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000IAD(DELHI)45, AIR2000DELHI52, 82(1999)DLT445, 2000(52)DRJ65, AIR 2000 DELHI 52, (1999) 82 DLT 445 (2000) 52 DRJ 65, (2000) 52 DRJ 65
ORDER Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in MCA No. 47/1999 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated 26.2.1999 passed by the Civil Judge grating ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners herein are in occupation of three LPG godowns as licensees and their licences are expiring on 31.3.2000, 31.3.1999 and 31.3.2000 respectively. It was alleged in the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners that the respondent/defendant started construction for 220 KV Transmission Line Tower in front of the godown of plaintiff No.1 and that the base of the said tower would be 20 ft. x 20 ft. which would not only cause problems and difficulties for the petitioners/plaintiffs while loading and unloading of gas cylinders, but might also cause accidents like setting the godowns on fire. Accordingly the petitioners/plaintiffs sought for a perpetual and mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendant.
3. The respondent/defendant on the other hand contended that the construction is only for 66 KV Tower. It was also stated that after a thorough survey the project was approved by a Technical Committee of senior engineers and several departments and that the said project would supply electricity and cater to the needs of various areas. It was also stated that the base would be only 3.5 meter x 3.5 meter and that most of the towers have already been constructed.
Along with the aforesaid suit, an injunction application was also filed by the petitioners on which an ex parte injunction order was passed by the Civil Judge restraining the respondent/defendant from installing tower No.16 in front of the gas godown of the petitioners/plaintiffs. As against the aforesaid order of injunction granted by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the respondent/defendant which was registered as MCA No. 47/1999. The Additional District Judge after hearing the parties set aside the order dated 26.2.1999 passed by the Civil Judge and vacated the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court and the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.
4. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the various documents available on record including the reports of the Committee and the No Objection Certificates and subsequent letters issued by the Chief Fire Officer, Electrical Inspector and Chief Controller of Explosives. He submitted that erection of the aforesaid huge tower in front of the LPG godowns of the petitioners would pose a serious threat to the safety and security not only to the godowns of the petitioners but would also be a safety hazard for the entire area which is densely populated. He also submitted that the Chief Controller of Explosives, the Delhi Fire Services and the Chief Electrical Inspector, Delhi Administration have categorically raised objections and submitted their reports against erection of such towers in front of LPG godowns and, therefore, in the light thereof, the Trial Court was justified in granting an injunction and the Appellate Court committed manifest error of law in setting aside the said order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also placed before me the letters of the aforesaid authorities appearing in pages Nos. 82, 136, 138, 166 and 194 of the paper book.
5. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that the aforesaid three authorities namely the Electrical Inspector, Chief Controller of Explosives and the Fire Officer had once given No Objection Certificates in respect of construction of such towers. It was also stated that proposed 66 KV tower line emanates from Pankha Road Institutional Area sub-station and constructions of almost all the towers in the route have since been completed except for construction of tower No. 16 which is in between tower Nos. 15 and 17. It was stated that construction of tower No.16 could not be started because of the injunction order granted by the Trial Court whereas, construction of tower Nos. 15 and 17 was started and the same are ready. She has also drawn my attention to the Report of the High Power Technical Committee constituted by the Appellate Court and relying on the same submitted that shifting of the tower location No. 16 is not feasible. She also submitted that the alternative routes suggested by the petitioners are not feasible at all for there should be no sag and swing of the conductor on the tower which is possible only when the tower as proposed is erected near the gas godowns.
6. In the light of the aforesaid submission, I have myself carefully perused the reports of the Committee including report of the High Power Technical Committee constituted by the Appellate Court and other relevant documents placed on record.
7. Before starting the project, the respondent appointed a High Power Technical Committee to go into the question of construction of 66 KV double circuit tower line between Pankha Road Institutional Area and Hari Nagar District Centre sub station. The Technical Committee appointed by respondent examined the matter and observed that the site for the electric station of Hari Nagar District Centre was already planned after examining the route alignment of the line required to be connected with the electric sub-station. After considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Technical Committee approved the proposed route alignment and the site. Thereafter the respondent started construction of the said 66 KV tower at different places and except for construction of tower No.16 which is located in front of the godowns of the petitioners, I am informed that constructions of the other towers are ready and complete.
8. In terms of the order of the Appellate Court, a High Power Technical Committee was constituted consisting of Members from the Delhi Vidyut Board, Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The said Committee re-examined the route and location in respect of double circuit tower line between Pankha Road Institutional Area and Hari Nagar District Centre sub-station. The Members of the Committee visited the site and thereafter submitted a Report which is dated 19.5.1999. After taking notice of various factors and alternative suggested for shifting of the said location of tower No.16 the Committee gave its Report stating that there was no other possible alternative route for the line or feasible location for tower No. 16 of the said line. A copy of the said Report has been placed on record. However, a supplementary Report was submitted in view of co-option of two Additional Members who were directed to be included in the Technical Committee pursuant to which Controller of Explosives and Electrical Inspector were co-opted and the said authorities submitted their report contending, inter alia, that the erection of tower and passing of over-head extra high tension line should be at a distance of at least 5 meters from the boundary wall of petitioner No. 3 and at least 9 meters from the boundary wall of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.
9. Much reliance was placed by the counsel for the petitioners on the safety clearances given by the Controller of Explosives and the Electrical Inspector wherein, they have stated that the erection of tower No.16 would introduce additional risk to the already existing hazardous premises.
10. It is indeed true that the Controller of Explosives stated in the said Report that erection of 66 KV tower was not at all advisable for public safety as all the three LPG godowns are adjoining to each other and the proposed tower is in front of M/s. Jayant Gas Service and the alignment of high tension line is same as that of three LPG godowns. In this connection, however, reference may be made to the letter of the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives dated 11.2.1999 wherein he stated that his office would have no objection in erection of 66 KV double circuit tower line subject to the condition that no part of the tower line will pass from above the safety area of any of the three godowns and safety assurances to eliminate accident as contained in the letter dated 2.12.1998. Similarly, the Electrical Inspector by his letter dated 8.4.1999 granted No Objection of erecting of tower No.16, subject to the condition that the respondent would provide proper and strong fencing around the transmission tower.
11. Thus, it transpires that at least at one stage both the Department of Explosives and Electrical Inspector were satisfied with the assurance of the respondent regarding erection of tower No.16 and granted No Objection Certificates for erection of the said tower. The Committee also considered the feasibility of shifting or altering the route alignment. On consideration of the same, they were of the opinion that once the foundation of a tower is cast, it could not be altered or shifted. Regarding possibility of change, of route alignment and re-location of tower No.16, it was found that if erection of tower No.16 at the proposed site is made, there would be no sag and swing of the conductor on the tower proposed to be erected near the gas godowns and the clearance would be maximum whereas shifting of the tower location No.16 would result into increase of sag of conductor above the gas godowns and Jail Road and moreover, the conductor would shift away towards gas godowns and, thereore, it was not feasible to either re-route the line on the opposite side of the gas godown along Major Rajiv Lal Marg or to relocate tower No.16 farther away from Jail Road towards tower location No.17. Therefore, the alternatives suggested by the petitioners were found to be not feasible. The alternatives as suggested by the petitioners were also placed before me with the help of a map and I find no reason to differ from the views taken by the High Power Technical Committee, which is an expert body, on the aforesaid proposals.
12. The Court is also to consider that the need of the public at large is an important factor to be taken notice of while dealing with an application for temporary injunction. In Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Constructions Ltd., it was held by the Supreme Court that factors like involving larger outlays of public money and delaying the availability of services, facilities of goods like delay in commissioning of power project could lead to power shortage, retardation of industrial development, hardship to the general public and substantial cost escalation are to be taken note of by the court while considering request for grant of interim stay. Some of the aforesaid factors are also present in the facts of the present case. Such factors, in my considered opinion are relevant factors to be considered in a case of injunction also, for grant of injunction in favour of the petitioner would mean that the same could lead to tremendous public hardship and substantial financial outlay in re-doing the entire work, thus involving larger outlays of public money and delaying the availability of services to the general public. The route map has already been prepared and no violation of the same could be pointed out by the petitioners except for stating that such route would introduce additional risk to the already existing hazardous premises. All the towers in the aforesaid route have already been constructed except for tower No.16. The said route is being laid and tower is being constructed after getting the matter examined through a High Power Technical Committee. The Committee in its Report emphatically stated that alternative is not possible.
13. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Additional Dis-
trict Judge. In my considered opinion, the petition has no merit and is dismissed. Application stands disposed of accordingly.