Gujarat High Court
Maganbhai Gosadabhai Gamit vs Gujarat State Energy Transmission ... on 6 March, 2020
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/5711/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5711 of 2020
==========================================================
MAGANBHAI GOSADABHAI GAMIT
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 06/03/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, under challenge is the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 by which the respondent no. 3 restrained the petitioners from creating any obstructions for erecting a transmission line passing through the land belonging to the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are residing at village Ghoda, Ta. Vyara and are having agricultural lands in the said village. Respondents no. 1 and 2 wanted to erect electric poles for transmission of electricity namely 220 K.V., Ukai Achhaliya Line No. 2, LILI at 220 K.V. Virpur Substation (Package-2) which is passing through the land belonging to present petitioners being Block Nos. 84, 66, paiki 1, 76, paiki 2, 72, 67, 60, 59, 54 and 61.
2.1 The respondents made an application before the learned Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:16:53 IST 2020 C/SCA/5711/2020 ORDER Collector, Tapi at Vyara restraining the petitioners from creating any obstructions in the process of erection of electricity poles. The Collector without taking into consideration their objections has decided the same. Hence the present petition.
3. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Tapi at Vyara and submitted that the presence of the petitioners was recorded on 26.11.2019 and they were informed that their objections will be considered. However, as is evident from the order, no reasons have been recorded to show as to how their objections have been dealt with.
3.1 Mr. Modi submitted that other alternative way to erect poles was available, however, that route was not considered and the order has been passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 164 of The Electricity Act, 2003 directing that the petitioners may not object to the erection of the transmission towers.
3.2 Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the petitioners relied on an oral order dated 27.12.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 17463 of 2018 with Special Civil Application No. 17466 of 2018 wherein considering the fact that no reasoning was given in the order of the Collector, the case was remanded to the Collector for reconsideration as the order impugned therein was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:16:53 IST 2020 C/SCA/5711/2020 ORDER4. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate has appeared on caveat on behalf of the respondents. He has taken me through the affidavit-in-reply filed to submit that the petitioners' two fold grievances that the line could have passed through an alternative route or that the portions of their agricultural lands will be useless, have been considered. He would invite the attention of the Court to the contentions in the affidavit-in-reply to submit that no stretch of wasteland was available of the required length and continuity. According to him the technical aspect of considering alternative routes was considered. Relying on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, he submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.
4.1 Mr. Hasurkar has relied on several judgements which are quoted in the affidavit-in-reply together with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act to submit that it is in complete discretion of the Collector and District Magistrate to consider the economic viability of erecting of transmission lines which have been considered and an order has been passed accordingly.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Collector on 21.12.2019 what is evident is that several objections though have been raised by the petitioners, except for recording that on 26.11.2019 the parties were present, nothing is on record from the contents of the order to suggest that the competent authority has considered the objections raised by the petitioners as to their Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:16:53 IST 2020 C/SCA/5711/2020 ORDER suggestions that the transmission line could pass through an alternative route. The order dated 21.12.2019 is therefore required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to respondent no. 3 for reconsideration.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 21.12.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 3 - Collector to take a fresh decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the matter is remanded only because the objections of the petitioners have not been dealt with and recorded in the impugned order and therefore the contentions raised by the petitioners are kept open and the respondent competent authority shall decide the matter without being influenced by the order of this Court. Petition is accordingly allowed. Direct service is permitted.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:16:53 IST 2020