Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/9740/2011 on 29 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 9740 of 2011-D
Date of Decision 29th December, 2011
________________________________________________________
Diwan Singh son of late Sh. Maan Singh resident of Village and Post Office Sarahan, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
….Petitioner.
Versus.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Jaypee Powergrid Ltd. Corporate Office J.A. house, 63, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057 and having its regional office at NH 22, Village Dakolar, P.O. Singla, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla (HP) through its Managing Director.
2. Union of India, Ministry of Power, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi through its Secretary.
3. District Magistrate, Sirmour at Nahan, H. P.
….Respondents.
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. _______________________________________________
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. _______________________________________________ For the Petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Advocate. For respondent No.1
Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate.
For respondent No.2.
Mr. Ajit Saklani, Central Government
Standing Counsel.
For Respondent No.3: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with
Mr. Anukush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. _______________________________________________________
Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral)
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to strictly follow the mandatory procedure for carrying out works and use of powers conferred by virtue of section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 10,16 and 18 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
(ii) The respondent No.1 may please be restrained from energizing of Overhead High Tension Power Cables without complying the mandatory provisions of law in rule in view of submissions made hereinabove and also from cutting/uprooting the trees and causing damage by way of digging/excavating the soil etc. of the land of the petitioner denoted by Khata/Khatauni No.153/267, khasra No.632 measuring 1727 sq. meters situated in mauja Sarahan, Patwar circle Sarahan, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla ( HP) in the interest of justice.
(iii) That the respondent No.1 may please be directed to either change the route of the overhead transmission line to some other place or to suitably raise the height of the relevant transmission towers in order to give proper and requisite elevation to the overhead power cables with special direction to avoid future untoward incident resulting into loss of life and property of the petitioner and general public at large.
(iv) . That the respondents may please also be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of damage already caused by them to the orchard, standing trees and crops of the petitioner in an illegal and forcible manner in as much as the work which has already been carried out by the respondent No.1 is in gross violation of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the condition No. VI of annexure P-3 as a result of which the petitioner has been forced to undergo mental harassment, agony and financial losses, in the interest of justice."
2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the lines have already been drawn and the project has been commissioned. According to the petitioner, before paying the compensation the lines should not have been drawn. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that the compensation had already been determined in terms of the data furnished by the Forest Department and the first respondent has always been ready and even now ready to pay the compensation but it is the petitioner who has not turned up to accept it.
3. Under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in case any person is not satisfied with the compensation already granted to him under Section 10 of the Act, it is for him to pursue the matter before the District Judge.
4. The first respondent shall forward the draft by registered post, in respect of the compensation already assessed by them, in case the petitioner is otherwise the entitled recipient thereof, within one month from today. Thereafter, in case the petitioner is aggrieved, it will be open to him to take recourse/remedy under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act,
1885 before the District Judge within another month and in which case the District Judge shall consider the matter on merit and dispose of the same within another six months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is the fate of similarly situated other villagers also. It is made clear that in case the amount as assessed by the Authority has not been received so far, the draft thereof shall be sent by registered post to all the persons, who are otherwise entitled to receive the same within one month from today.
6. Since the lines have already been drawn and the project has already been commissioned, it is made clear that there shall not be interference by the petitioner or such other people on account of the sufficiency of compensation, since, the petitioner and other persons are entitled to approach the District Judge under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, within one month after receipt of the assessed compensation.
7. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Justice Kurian Joseph)
Chief Justice.
(Justice Dev Darshan Sud),
Judge .
December 29, 2011 (R/Jai)