Karnataka High Court
Mrs Diana B Coelho vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 August, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.3500-3501/2012 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. Mrs. Diana B. Coelho,
W/o. late I.R. Coelho,
Aged about 63 years.
2. Mrs. Carman Coelho,
D/o. late I.R. Coelho,
Age: major.
Both are R/at No.567,
16th A Main, 3rd Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.
Both are represented by their
General Power of Attorney Holder
Mr. E.J. Coelho, S/o. late G.J. Coelho,
Aged about 74 years,
R/at Silver Cloud Estate,
Gudalur - 643 211.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Mysore District,
Mysore.
2
2. The Executive Engineer,
Major Works Division,
Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited (KPTCL),
F.T.S. Circle, N.R. Mohalla,
Mysore.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri N.K. Gupta, Adv. for C/R2)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order
dated 17.1.2012 in case No.MAG (3) MIS.8/11-12 passed
by the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Mysore
District, Mysore, which is produced and marked as
Annexure-N to the WP.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This is second round of litigation between the parties. W.P.No.22406/2011 filed by the petitioners was allowed in part on 30.06.2011. While setting aside the impugned order therein, respondent No.1 was directed to reconsider the matter and pass order on the application filed by the 2nd respondent on 22.03.2011, to which the petitioners had filed statement of objections. Though the petitioners filed further statement of objections, the 1st respondent having allowed the application filed by the 2nd 3 respondent and permitted the execution of the project work of drawing of power lines on the petitioners' lands, vide an order dated 17.01.2012, as at Annexure-N, these writ petitions have been filed.
2. The 2nd respondent having filed statement of objections on 21.02.2012, this Court having directed the 2nd respondent to find out whether there could be any deviation of land by drawing the line by erecting the towers at the extreme western side of the property of the petitioners, a spot inspection having been undertaken on 11.04.2012 and proceedings having been drawn, additional written statement of objections was filed by the 2nd respondent on 20.06.2012.
3. Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that in the statement of objections filed before the 1st respondent, petitioners having made clear that they have no objection to use the border of their land to erect electricity line, instead of using the midst of the property, which has already been converted to non- 4 agricultural use, the 1st respondent has arbitrarily permitted the 2nd respondent to erect the electricity towers in the middle of the petitioners' property. He submitted that the decision of the 1st respondent, vide order at Annexure-N is arbitrary, illegal and hence, warrants interference.
4. Sri N.K. Gupta, learned advocate for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, by taking me through the statement of objections filed on 21.02.2012 and additional statement of objections filed on 20.06.2012, contended that the objections raised by the petitioners before the 1st respondent being untenable, the 1st respondent is justified in passing the impugned order. The 2nd respondent has produced the documents in support of the stand taken in the statement of objections and the additional statement of objections i.e., in justification of the order passed by the 1st respondent, as at Annexure-N.
5. Perused the writ record. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is, whether the 5 decision of the 1st respondent as at Annexure-N is arbitrary?
6. The 2nd respondent had approached the 1st respondent with an application under S.16(1) of the Indian Post and Telegraph Act, 1885. The 1st respondent by rejecting the request of the petitioners to file statement of objections had passed an order dated 09.06.2011 in exercise of the power conferred under S.164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and S.16(1) of the Indian Post and Telegraph Act, 1885. The said order when questioned in W.P.No.22406/2011 was found to be vitiated on account of the denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing and was set aside on 30.06.2011. Petitioners were permitted to file objections and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the matter and to pass an order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners having filed statement of objections, upon consideration, the 1st respondent has passed the order dated 17.01.2012, as at Annexure-N. The conclusion, which has been arrived at by the 1st 6 respondent in the order as at Annexure-N has the material support.
7. In view of the observations made by the Court, after the statement of objections was filed, that the 2nd respondent should find out whether there could be any deviation of land by drawing the line and erecting the towers on the extreme western side property of the petitioners, to find out feasibility of drawing the transmission line on the extreme western side of the property of the petitioners, a joint inspection of the officers of the KPTCL and a representative of the petitioners has been conducted on 11.04.2012 and the proceedings have been drawn, which can be seen from Annexure-R14. In case there were to be shifting of location No.63, as requested by the petitioners, consequences can be seen from the sketch, as at Annexure-R15, in which event, the towers have to be re-erected and the line should be drawn as shown in Annexure-R15. The neighbouring land owners have submitted their objection statements. 7
8. On 11.07.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners took time to enable the petitioners to get in touch with the neighbouring land owners and obtain no objection certificates, if possible i.e., in order to enable respondent No.2 to realign the proposed towers & HT line. The same was extended on 18.07.2013. Today, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are unable to obtain the NOCs from the neighbours, for change of alignment by the respondent No.2.
9. The 1st respondent after considering the objections filed by the petitioners has passed the order, as at Annexure-N. In view of the joint inspection conducted on 11.04.2012 and the proceeding drawn vide Annexures- R.14 and R.15, the decision which the 1st respondent taken vide Annexure-N, in my opinion, is neither perverse nor illegal, warranting any interference. Alignment of HT power lines/towers cannot be changed to suit individual property owners. If the alignment as sought by the 8 petitioners were to be relocated, the neighbouring owners would be affected.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record of the writ petitions, the impugned decision cannot be termed as either arbitrary or illegal. Consequently, the petitioners' claim for drawing of line and erecting of towers on the extreme western side of their property cannot be accepted.
In the result, writ petitions being devoid of merit shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksj/-