Madhya Pradesh High Court
Das Kumar Patel vs Union Of India on 20 November, 2015
WP-9148-2015
(DAS KUMAR PATEL Vs UNION OF INDIA)
20-11-2015
Shri A.K. Jain for the petitioner.
Shri J.K. Jain, Assistant Solicitor General, for Union of
India/respondent No.1.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition in Public Interest. He claims to be a resident of Village Lamheta Ghat and challenges the action of respondent No.2 M/s Jhabua Power Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana in erecting high tension power towers and electric transmission lines in Village Lamheta contrary to the sanction accorded by the statutory authorities.
Interalia contending that the transmission lines and towers are being erected inconsistent to the sanction accorded by the maps, which have been filed on record, the petition has been filed and the relief claimed is that a direction be issued to the respondents directing them to uproot all the electric transmission lines from those places which are not part of the approved map. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Government Advocate, invites our attention to the order passed earlier in the matter of erection of transmission lines in the same village by Coordinate Benches of this Court. Learned counsel refers to a writ petition filed by one Smt. Vidya Bai, W.P. No. 3440/2015, which has been decided by a learned Single Bench of this Court vide order passed on 30.3.2015, wherein also similar allegations were made and after evaluating the same, the following orders have been passed and the interim stay vacated. The order reads as under:
â In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that they are not installing the High Tension Transmission Tower on the land of the petitioner and that they would pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss or damage, if any caused to the petitioner on account of the fact that the High Tension Transmission Line is going over her field and that they have installed the towers in accordance with the sanctioned route and map as decided by the Collector by order-dated 4.10.2014, I do not find any reason to entertain the present petition which is meritless and is disposed of after recording the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondents.
It goes without saying that the interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.â That apart, learned Government Advocate invites our attention to another order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, Writ Petition No. 11176/2014 [Durgesh Yadav Vs. Union of India and others], wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also dismissed a similar writ petition filed, challenging the same acquisition proceedings. Copy of the order-dated 22.9.2014 filed in the case of Durgesh Yadav, is available on record.
We have considered the contentions advanced and the objections raised by Shri Swapnil Ganguly and we find that apart from the observations made by the learned Single Bench while vacating stay in the case of Smt. Vidya Bai (supra), in the PIL filed by Durgesh Yadav (supra), similar contentions were raised with regard to erection and construction of transmission towers and there passing through the area in question and it was also indicated that the transmission lines are being erected contrary to the requirement of law. While considering the same, a Coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with the matter in the following manner:-
â Reverting to the second relief claimed by the petitioners, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the question of alignment of construction of transmission towers and laying of transmission lines has to be dealt with by the experts and competent authority in that behalf. The Court has no means to re-draw the alignment or direct re-alignment of the construction of transmission towers and laying of transmission lines. That cannot be the scope of judicial review. The petitioners or similarly placed persons who are affected by the proposed alignment are free to make representations to the competent authority who will be free to consider their representations in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion either way on this point agitated in the present petition in that behalf.
In other words, leaving all issues open with liberty to the affected persons to take recourse to other appropriate remedy, we dispose of this petition which is filed a public interest litigation.â Keeping in view the aforesaid observations made and further considering the fact that Collector, Jabalpur has already passed an order on 4.10.2014, filed as Annexure P/3, holding that the transmission lines are being erected in accordance with the sanctioned map and in the absence of challenge made to the order passed by the Collector on 4.10.2014 and in the light of the observations made, as reproduced hereinabove in the case of Durgesh Yadav (supra), we see no reason to make any further indulgence in the matter now at the instance of the present petitioner.
If persons have any grievance with regard to order-dated 4.10.2014, passed by the Collector and filed as Annexure P/3, they may challenge the same afresh in accordance with law, but at the instance of the petitioner and for the reasons as are indicated hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (KESHAV KUMAR
JUDGE TRIVEDI)
JUDGE