Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Thereafter, on 22.02.2011, the 2nd Respondent had passed an order accepting the route suggested by the 1st Respondent by holding that the route suggested by the K.S.E.B was the most feasible route and the drawing of the line suggested by the appellants and others through the public road was not feasible in view of the narrow width of the public road. It was also found by the 2nd Respondent that if foundations are erected to install the electric post, the width of the public road will be further reduced and the same will cause disturbance to the vehicular traffic. It was also pointed out by the 2nd Respondent that the alternative routes suggested by the appellants have large number of curves, vegetations will be affected more and further the same will affect the residential buildings situated in the said route. Challenging the said order, appellants in W.A.Nos.1799 and 1847 of 2015 have preferred W.P.(C) Nos.6812 and 6846 of 2011 before this Court and on instructions, the learned counsel for the Board had submitted before the Court that the order dated  22.02.2011 was not concerning the properties of the petitioners and therefore recording the same, the writ petitions were closed. It was the further contention of the appellants that even though the submission was so made by the learned Standing Counsel, the 2nd Respondent had issued the very same order dated 22.02.2011, without considering the objections raised by the appellants against the action of the Board. It is thus aggrieved by the said order dated 22.02.2011, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petitions.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the alternative route suggested by them was the most feasible route since neither the property of the appellants nor the property of other persons will be affected by the drawing of the line, if the proposed line is drawn through the public road pointed out by the appellants. Appellants have also produced  different sketches showing the alternative routes suggested by each of them. Moreover, appellants have also contended that the properties of the appellants could be saved by drawing underground cables to the Sub Station. Therefore, learned counsel contended that the sketch prepared by the Board to draw the electric line through the properties of the appellants is unsustainable in law and facts.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Board contended that the Board had placed all materials before the 2nd Respondent consequent to the resistance put forth by the appellants and thereafter it was taking into account the entire fact situations and materials that the 2nd Respondent has passed the order impugned and therefore the appellants cannot contend that a different view shall be taken by the Court replacing the order passed by the 2nd Respondent. Learned Standing Counsel also contended that the order was passed by the 2nd Respondent by complying with all principles enunciated under law and therefore there is no illegality or other legal infirmities which enable a writ Court to interfere with the order impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the  alternative route suggested by the appellants was inspected by the 2nd Respondent and since there were stiff resistance from the side of the appellants and others, the route suggested by the Board and the alternative route suggested by the appellants were inspected by the District Collector also and it was thus taking into account all the situations that ultimately the impugned order was passed. Moreover, the appellants did not have a case that the action of the Board is actuated by any malafides and therefore the order impugned was rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that of the 9 k.m. route, except the last stretch of 750 Metres, the installation of posts and line work were proceeded and consequent to the interim order passed in the writ petitions, the work could not be completed. Learned Standing Counsel also contended that since the property of other persons were involved in the route and only the appellants herein challenged the order impugned, enabled the Board to proceed with the work and therefore if the reliefs sought for by the appellants are allowed, it will cause innumerable difficulties and losses to the Board. 

13. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions advanced by the parties and after verifying the documents, report of the Advocate Commissioner and scrutinizing the rival sketches produced by the parties, had come to a definite finding that the impugned order was passed by the 2nd Respondent by taking into account the entire facts, situations, applying the principles of law and provisions of the Telegraph Act r/w Electricity Act and Rules. Learned Single Judge has relied on the Commission Report for the limited purpose of verifying whether the routes suggested by the  appellants were feasible routes alternative to the one suggested by the Board. The learned Single Judge after analysing the sketch produced by the rival parties and the report of the Advocate Commissioner had come to a finding that the route suggested by the appellants through the public road was narrow and lying in a zig-zag manner having lot of curves and uneven width at various points. The learned Single Judge had found that since the public road through which the route was suggested by the appellants was narrow and if post and foundation were erected in the said route, same will cause hindrance to the vehicular traffic. Furthermore, it was found that if the route suggested by the appellants were accepted, the distance of the route will be more by 220 metres. The learned Single Judge has also found that in the impugned order, certain variations were made by the 2nd Respondent so as to have least inconvenience to the appellants. Even though a suggestion was made for drawing underground cable, the Board had objected to the same by contending that the same will cost Rs.60 Lakhs per k.m. and the same was not feasible.