Karnataka High Court
M S Engineering College Navarathna ... vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 29 June, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8392/2021 (GM - KEB)
BETWEEN
M.S.ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA,
SADAHALLI PO,
OFF BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
BENGALURU - 562 110.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MR.SUDARSHAN RAJU.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI.K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCING)]
AND
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
400 KV SSC DIVISION, KPTCL,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
SCIENCES (UAS) CAMPUS,
HEBBAL,
BANGALORE - 560 024.
REPRESENTED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R
(VIDEO CONFERENCING)]
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT KARNATAKA
POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (HEREIN
AFTER REFERRED TO AS KPTCL) IN CONVERSION OF 220
KV SINGLE CIRCUIT COMPRESSING OF 3 LINES INTO 220
KV MULTI CIRCUIT COMPRESSING OF 12 LINES AS
HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the action of the respondent - Karnataka Power Transmission Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KPTCL' for short) in conversion of 220 KV Single Circuit comprising of 3 Lines into 220 KV Multi circuit comprising of 3 12 lines, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary as it passes through the petitioner's Institution, against which, the petitioner has registered its protest on 22.01.2021 to the Authorities of the respondent - KPTCL.
3. The respondent - KPTCL in turn has communicated to the petitioner stating that shifting of the lines would not be financially or technically feasible as is sought to be considered at the hands of the petitioner and any such deviation shall be carried out by the Institution itself at their own cost by obtaining corporate approvals.
4. What is to be noticed is the Act which empowers the respondent to lay down the lines or alteration. Laying down lines or its alteration is dealt with under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short). 4
5. Section 10 of the said Act deals with power to place telegraph lines and posts.
6. Section 16 of the said Act deals with the exercise of powers by a local authority as conferred under Section 10 of the said Act.
7. Section 16(1) (2) and (3) reads as follows:
"16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.-- (1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having 5 control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him."
8. Section 17 of the said Act deals with the removal or alteration of telegraph line or post, on property other than that of a local authority.
9. Section 17 of the said Act reads as follows:
"17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post, on property other than that of a local authority.--
(1) When, under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or post has been 6 placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in form, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly:
Provided that, if compensation has been paid under section 10, clause (d), he shall, when making the requisition, tender to the telegraph authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum.7
(2) If the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to order the removal or alteration.
(3) A District Magistrate receiving an application under sub-section (2) may, in his discretion, reject the same or make an order, absolutely or subject to conditions, for the removal of the telegraph line or post to any other part of the property or to a higher or lower level or for the alteration of its form; and the order so made shall be final."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In terms of Section 17(3) of the said Act, an application made for alteration or removal of telegraph line or post shall be considered by the District Magistrate on receipt of such application. Therefore, in terms of the said Act, the petitioner will have to file an 8 application before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate is obliged to consider the same as mandated under Section 17(3) of the said Act and pass appropriate orders.
11. Therefore, on conjoint reading of Sections 16(1) and 17 of the said Act, the duty is cast upon the District Magistrate to consider the restriction or obstruction made by any person or removal or alteration of a telegraphic line on the property of the applicant.
12. Therefore, in terms of the said Act, the petitioner is directed to file an application before the jurisdictional District Magistrate, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
13. If the application is filed within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the District Magistrate shall consider the same and pass 9 appropriate orders within 4 weeks thereafter, till such time, the respondent - KPTCL is restrained from precipitating the matter.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK