Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Arunbhai Hiralal Choksi vs Gujarat Energy Transmission ... on 30 September, 2019

Author: J. B. Pardiwala

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

           C/LPA/868/2016                                     ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 868 of 2016

           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11859 of 2016

                                 With
         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2019
               In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 868 of 2016

                                With
     CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2019
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 868 of 2016
==========================================================
                   ARUNBHAI HIRALAL CHOKSI
                            Versus
     GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI

                            Date : 30/09/2019

                  COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original writ­applicant of a Special Civil Application and is directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19/07/2016 in the Special Civil Application No.11859 of 2016, whereby, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ­application preferred by the appellant herein.

2. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ­application has Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 02 22:35:04 IST 2019 C/LPA/868/2016 ORDER observed as under:­ 03 Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar has referred to the background of the facts and also emphasized the order passed by the High Court (Coram : K.M. Thaker, J.) in Special Civil Application No.4647/2015 dated 19.03.2015 and submitted that though this order has been passed, the respondents have not considered nor have replied and proceeded with the installation of the tower. It has also been argued that the action of the respondent in installing the tower no.4 without the consent of the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

04 As could be seen from the averments in the petition and background of the facts, learned advocate for the petitioner has harped upon the order passed by the High Court (Coram : K.K. Thaker, J.) in Special Civil Application No.No.4647/2015 dated 19.03.2015 only produced at Annexure­F and the said order refers to consideration of the representation that may be made by the petitioner with reference to the representation dated 24.02.2015. However as could be seen from the record, the petitioner has been given notice dated 06.12.2013 produced at Annexure­E and there is reference to the provision of Indian Telegraphic Act and installation of the Telegraphic Lines or the polls and in same way, the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation is also established to lay the tower for the transmission of energy lines after the notice was served in the year 2013. It appears that the petitioner has been making representation which has already been replied and considered. It is evident from the communication of the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. dated 11.12.2014, wherein there is specific reference to the letter dated 19.12.2014 and 25.12.2014 that the petitioner has been informed by notice and the amount of Rs.90,000/­ has been paid by cheque towards the compensation for the crop. The representative/Executive Engineer had met the petitioner, who had considered feasibility of shifting of line. It clearly states that it is near to National Highway No.8 and technically it may not be feasible to accept the request for shifting line. Even as per the communication dated 09.01.2015 at Annexure­D, same thing has been conveyed to him and the petitioner had filed earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.4647/2015 on the ground that the representation dated 24.02.2015 has not been considered. As stated, the representation made dated 19.12.2014 and 25.12.2014 were considered, which is evident from the communication dated 11.12.2014 as well as 09.01.2014 that it is not feasible to shift laying of the line and the compensation has been paid. Therefore merely because inspite of such clarification and considering the case of the petitioner in his presence by the Executive Engineer, it hardly leave doubt for any scope in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 02 22:35:04 IST 2019 C/LPA/868/2016 ORDER Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is required to be stated that the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 referred to laying of the electricity lines and also distribution of the electricity energy through licencees. There may be some licencees for the distribution and some licencees like in the facts of the case have been granted for creation of the infrastructure for the purpose of basic framework for the supply of the electricity. It is in these circumstances, the Electricity Act read with Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 provides for mechanism for the creation of the transfer, transmission and distribution of energy through Companies. Therefore as the respondent no.2 is the Corporation established for such purpose, there is no reason to exercise any discretion particularity when it has been made clear to the petitioner that it is not feasible possible to shift the line as suggested and particularly when the compensation towards the lines or damage to the crop has been paid.

05 Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.

3. The position, as on date, is that there are two towers erected in the agricultural farm of the writ­applicant and there is a transmission­ line passing through the land of the appellant herein. The project has been commissioned since a long period of time. In our view, no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ­application.

4. We may only say that the writ­applicant shall be paid appropriate compensation that may be determined by the authority in accordance with law for the usage of the land owned by the appellant herein. We are informed that an amount of 90,000/­ (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) has already been paid to the writ­applicant by way of compensation.

5. In view of the above, nothing further can be done in the matter. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS:­ The two Civil Applications were disposed of long time back. They have been wrongly notified today in the board.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI, J) aruna Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 02 22:35:04 IST 2019