Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vii) Rule 87(3) provides the minimum clearance that is required, when a new line is drawn over and above the existing line to ensure the safety distance which has to be maintained;

(viii) Rule 87(4) states that the owner of the new line should provide guarding arrangements to his own new line or ask the owner of the existing line to make arrangement for such guarding and the cost to be borne by person making a new line in terms of Rule 87(5);

(ix) Rule 87(6) provides as to how the crossing of the line should be done and this sub-Rule is not applicable to the petitioner's case, since the Rule does not use the expression existing line, which is found in Rule 87(2) and 87(4) and therefore, this sub-Rule will apply only to cases where both lines are new lines and there is a necessity for deviation, which is required to be done in right angles.

11. Thus, it is the submission of the learned Senior counsel is that Rule 87(6) will apply only when two new proposed lines are drawn and will not apply to the petitioner's case and the said Rule stands apart and cannot be read along with sub-Rules 1 to 5 of Rule 87. It is further submitted that the topo sketch filed along with the Commissioner's report as well as that which was produced by the respondent Board will clearly reveal that there is a deviation of the route, which will cause substantial damage to the petitioner's property, which became evident only after the erection of the tower T44/C/0 in S.F.No.362. Thus, when there is deviation from the exiting route, the interest of the petitioner/land owner should be protected and the respondent should be directed to draw the transmission line without any deviation and when it crosses the existing 110KV line appropriate guarding devices are required to be provided.

(8) All work required to be done by or under this rule shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Inspector.

22. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 87(1) of the Rules, the owner of the new overhead line could make a new line which could run over and cut across over and above the existing line and in such cases, it shall provide guarding arrangements or protective devices as contemplated in the Code of Practice or the guidelines prepared by the Power and Telecommunication Coordination Committee. In terms of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 87, owner of the new line should give one month's notice to the owner of the existing line indicating his intention to comply with Rule 87(2), with complete details of the protection along with the drawings to the owner of the existing line. Therefore, it is submitted that this Rule would mean that the owner of the existing line should approve and agree on the safety measures of protective guarding or devices so indicated by the owner of the new line intended to the crossed up and over the existing line. It is further submitted that sub-rule (3) of Rule 87 prescribes the minimum distance of clearance that is required when the new line is drawn over and above the existing line, the distance is to be maintained between the new line that goes over the existing line is indicated by considering the different capacities of the existing line and the new line and the safety distance that is to be maintained between the two lines when the new line runs over the existing line; sub-rule (4) states that the owner of the new line should provide guarding arrangements to his own new line or ask the owner of the existing line to make arrangements for such guarding; sub-rule (5) speaks about the cost liability; sub-rule (6) deals with the contingency where two lines cross at stipulates that the crossing shall be made as nearly at right angles; and sub-rule (7) deals with the maintenance of the guarding arrangements. It is the submission of the learned counsel that sub-rule (6) of Rule 87 will never apply to the facts of the case on hand, as the rule is silent with respect to the existing line, as the same has not been used in the said Rule. Therefore, it is submitted that there is a possibility of deviation from each other at the required angle and this cannot be misinterpreted so as to make sub-rules (1) to (5) as redundant.

23. In other words, it is submitted that sub-rules (1) to (5) of Rule 87 deals with the new line drawn over and above the existing line, whereas sub-rule (6) deals with possible adjustments of two new lines being simultaneous in nature and therefore, sub-rule (6) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

24. The admitted facts as per the additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, filed in July 2016 is to the following effect:-

7. I submit that as per the original approved route, from the Tower No.44/0 to Tower No.44A/0 are in strait line. From Tower No.44A/0, the route takes 12: 33'36 Left Turn and passes in straight line connecting Tower No 44/1 and up to Tower No.44B/0 by considering the existing road, House, Pump House, LT line etc. From Tower No.44 B/0, the route takes 53: 34'56 Right Turn and passes up to Tower No 44C/0 by considering the existing 110KV Double Circuit EHT Power Line, 2 Nos LT Lines, 11KV, Road, Cart Track, etc. From Tower No.44C/0 the route takes 53: 34'56 Left Turn and passes in straight line connecting Tower No.44C/1, Tower No.44C/2, Tower No.44C/3, Tower No.44C/4, Tower No.44C/5, Tower No.44C/6 and up to Tower No.44D/0 by leaving adequate clearance to the existing House (belonging to the petitioner), LT line etc.