WP/30911/2021 of Medisetti Murali Srinivas, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2021

ORDER:-

Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms.Vangala Sailaja, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, learned Advocate, that he has lodged a Caveat on behalf of the 5[th] respondent.

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the proceedings issued by the 3[rd]respondent, Executive Engineer-Operation, Gunadala, Vijayawada, vide Lr.No.EE/O/GDL/Comml/F.W.P.14625/D.No.1630/21, dated 22.12.2021. By way of the impugned proceedings, the 3[rd]respondent herein rejected the objections filed by the petitioners with regard to 11KV electric lines on the existing LT network. Earlier, the petitioners herein approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.14625 of 2021 for a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to lay high voltage electric service lines across the pathway in Sy.No.414/2, Block No.15, Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

This Court by way of an order dated 27.07.2021, disposed of the said Writ Petition and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

“Having heard the learned counsel on either side, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the petitioners herein to submit an appropriate representation, in writing to the respondents 2 to 4 for redressal of their grievance, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for consideration of the respondents herein and for taking appropriate action/passing appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks thereafter, after hearing all the stakeholders. It is made clear that till a decision is taken, Status Quo as on today, with regard to laying of high voltage electric service lines in the subject land, shall be maintained.

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

According to the petitioners, pursuant to the said order, they filed objections before the 3[rd] respondent on 25.08.2021. Thereafter, while referring to the order of this Court in W.P.No.14625 of 2021 and the representations made by the petitioners herein vide Lr.No.EE/O/GDL/ Comml/F.No.CG/ D.No.1537/2021, dated 03.12.2021, the 3[rd] respondent herein issued a notice, calling upon the petitioners to attend his office on 09.12.2021 at 11:00 hrs for personal hearing. Subsequently, by way the impugned Lr.No. EE/O/GDL /Comml/ F.W.P. 14625/D.No.1630/21, dated 22.12.2021, the 3[rd] respondent, rejected the objections filed by the petitioners on the ground that the said objections were not acceptable as per the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short ‘ the Rules).

According to Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel, the said action on the part of the 3[rd] respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and not in consonance with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.14625 of 2021. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that though the petitioners herein submitted objections and despite the receipt of the said objections by the 3[rd] respondent, the 3[rd] respondent did not consider the contents of the said objections and without assigning any reasons issued the impugned letter dated 22.12.2021.

On the contrary, Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that there is no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action, as such, the questioned notification is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that since the objections raised by the petitioners herein are not acceptable as per the Rules, the 3[rd] respondent herein having considered the objections and having found that the said objections were not acceptable, issued the impugned letter, as such, the impugned letter cannot be faulted by any stretch of imagination.

A perusal of the material available on record, in clear and vivid terms, discloses that while disposing of W.P.No.14526 of 2021 by way of an order dated 27.07.2021, this Court gave liberty to the petitioners herein to submit appropriate representation in writing for redressal of their grievance and for consideration of the same by the respondents, while making it clear that pending decision, status quo should be maintained by the respondents with regard to laying of high voltage electric service lines in the subject land.

It is absolutely not in dispute that pursuant to the orders of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, petitioners herein filed objections before the 3[rd] respondent on 25.08.2021. Infact in the notice of enquiry dated 03.12.2021, the 3[rd] respondent herein referred to the objections submitted by the petitioners herein. Coming to the impugned letter dated 22.12.2021, it is to be noted that except stating that the objections raised by the petitioners herein were not acceptable to the APCPDCL Department under the Rules, the 3[rd] respondent herein did not make any endeavour to consider the validity or sustainability of the objections raised by the petitioners herein by passing a speaking order. When specific objections are raised, it is incumbent on the part of the 3[rd]respondent to answer the same by way of a speaking order and in the instant case, the 3[rd] respondent followed the same in breach. Therefore, on this ground alone, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned letter dated 22.12.2021 and remand the matter back to the 3[rd] respondent for fresh consideration of the issues raised by the petitioners in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the unofficial respondent-5[th] respondent is also entitled to file its version within a period of one week from today, for consideration of the same by the 3[rd] respondent and the 3[rd] respondent herein shall issue notice both to the petitioners and as well as to the 5[th]respondent, calling upon them for personal hearing and only after hearing the petitioners and the 5[th] respondent, the 3[rd] respondent herein shall pass appropriate orders. Till such exercise is completed, status quo as on today with regard to laying of electric service lines in the subject land shall be maintained. It is also made clear that the petitioners as well as the 5[th] respondent shall appear before the 3[rd] respondent on the date which is to be fixed by the 3[rd]

respondent. It is also further made clear that if the petitioners or the 5[th] respondent are not present on the said date, it is open for the 3[rd] respondent to proceed as per law in their absence. It is also made clear that the petitioners herein as well as the 5[th] respondent shall exchange their objections/representations.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

__________________________

JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

Date:31.12.2021 Note: Furnish C.C. by 06.01.2022 B/o. VSL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

WRIT PETITION No.30911 OF 2021

Date: 31.12.2021

VSL