Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgesh Yadav vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2014
Writ Petition No.11176 of 2014
22.09.2014
Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Senior counsel with Shri
Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
for the respondents No.1 and 3.
Shri Sandeep Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, lerned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Two reliefs have been claimed in this PIL. The first relief is to restrain the respondents No.1 and 2 to continue with the construction of transmission towers and laying of transmission line as notified in Annexure P-4. The second relief is to direct the said respondent, realingnment of construction of transmission towers and laying of transmission lines in larger interest of the public.
As regards the first relief, the argument proceeds that the respondents No.1 and 2 were engaged in construction of transmission towers which were passing through Panchayat Area without taking prior permission of the Panchayat.
As regards this contention, in view of the statement made across the Bar by counsel for the Nagar Panchayat, the Chief Municipal Officer of the Panchayat is considering the request of grant of permission to install transmission towers in the Panchayat Area and as the respondent No.2 has deposited the amount as demanded, appropriate decision on that application will be taken by the concerned authority.
In view of this submission, in our opinion, nothing is required to be done. Notably, assuarance is given by respondent No.2 through counsel that the construction of transmission towers would proceed only after grant of necessary permission. We place this assurance on record.
Counsel for the petitioner would then contend that the Chief Municipal Officer has no authority to decide the subject application. That authority vests in the Panchayat and must be taken by the Panchayat as a whole. The fact remains that the application made by respondent No.2 is still being processed and no final decision one way or the other has been taken by the authority. As and when that decision is taken, whether the concerned authority had the power to consider the application or otherwise can be examined. The grievance made by the petitioner is, therefore, premature. Assuming that there is good ground to challenge the decision taken by the concerned authority on the said application, it is always open to the aggrieved person to approach the higher authority such as, by resorting to mechanism provided under Section 323 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, if so advised. We are not expressing any opinion either way in that regard.
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 as public interest litigation.
Cc as per rules.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
AM.