WP(C)/639/2020 of RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA GREEN TOWN SOPORE THROUGH FAROOQ AHMAD WANI Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (POWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT) on 30 December 2022

JUDGMENT

01. The petitioners in this petition seek a direction to the respondents not to install the HT lines (11000 watts) over the fencing of the house owners as well as under the roof and over the washrooms and also in the irrigation canal which blocks the canal. A mandamus is also sought to remove the power poles and lines erected over the fencing of the house owners.

02. The petitioners are the residents of Green Town Sopore and have filed this petition against the Department of Power Development, who have started installing High Tension Lines (11000 watts) and deploying the poles near the tin fencing of the houses of the owners including roofs of the house owners. They are aggrieved of laying of these electric lines as the same may endanger human lives. It is also their contention that the installation of these electric lines has also started blocking the irrigation canal as well as road in the area.

03.

03. The contention of the petitioners is that the power lines are still incomplete and have not yet been charged. The petitioners, thus, approached the respondents and submitted that though they have no objection in the installation of lines but the same should be installed in the way that would not endanger the life of the residents. In response to their request, it is submitted that the officials of the Power Development Department, Sopore came on spot and inspected the area but did not take any action. Though in this regard, the local officials of the Power Development Department Sopore came on spot and tried to resolve the issue with respondent No. 6 but their grievance could not be redressed. The petitioners thereafter have made several representations to the concerned authorities but of no avail. The petitioners, thus, have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents restraining them from installing the HT lines (11000 Watts) over fencing of house owners as well as under the roofs and over the washrooms and also in the irrigation canal which blocks the said canal.

04. Power Development Department, Sopore i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their objections submit that, the Project Division North Baramulla had taken up the work under Centrally Sponsored Scheme, R-APDRP-B in Sopore and Baramulla towns that includes the Green Town Sopore area. The objective of the aforesaid scheme was to replace the conventional loss LT distribution network by efficient HVDS in order to contain the technical and commercial losses including pilferage of power.

They have also submitted that new poles and transformers and allied network were laid in the area and installed along the road side and on government land and no danger or threat was being caused to human lives and property.

05. They have categorically denied the allegation that the irrigation canal has been blocked. The department, according to them, has carried out the spot inspection and directed the contractor to redress the grievances of the residents, if any. The work is still under progress which is undertaken after requisite permission and after getting the requisite inspection and clearance certificate from the competent Government Agency in order to safeguard the life and property. It is also stated that there is no threat caused to the life or property of anyone. It is also denied that there is any political interference in the Centrally Sponsored Scheme.

06. The issue, whether the laying of transmission line can be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, was considered by this Court in Ranvijay Chand & anr. Vs. State of J&K and ors. (LPA No. 131/2001) reported as 2005 (1) JKJ 236, in which this Court had held as under:- “6. The aforesaid provisions in its plain meaning clearly recognizes that except for erecting a tower and installing posts for the purpose of carrying high tension wires, no right is claimed in the property of the individual, viz., appellants herein, and in case any damage is caused to the property in the installation of the tower in their land, full compensation has to be paid in respect of the damage or inconvenience occasioned to him. Any interference in the exercise of this recognized statutory powers by respondent-2 would be affecting the interest of public at large. In other words, constructing concrete basis for installing high posts to draw high tension wires for supply of electricity over the land of the appellants is subject to their right to claim damages.”

07. In a scheme sanctioned as per the Act, the person affected due to laying of transmission line can only claim damages as an aerial right of ways which continues to be with the State and the individual owners cannot claim any compensation in respect thereto. The transmission lines are being laid overhead the land and houses of the petitioners pursuant to the Centrally Sponsored Scheme in exercise of statutory power of the respondents, therefore, no interference can be exercised by this Court to restrain them from doing so. The State is under an obligation to provide undisturbed electricity supply as far as possible by laying transmission lines by implementing the scheme and as per approved project report. It is well settled that administrative or executive action of the State can be subject to judicial review only when the procedure followed in taking action is contrary to law, this, however, not the case in this petition.

08. This apart, in Vinod Chatter Ji & ors. vs. State of J&K & ors. (LPAOW No. 89/2008), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- (LPAOW No. 89/2008), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has “……..The contention of the respondents in that case was accepted holding that Public interest will prevail over private interest. The said issue i.e., if the electricity lines are drawn as per the approved scheme, the land owners cannot object drawing of the transmission line was already considered by the Supreme Court and the view taken by the Division Bench in the above referred case is based on the settled proposition of law. In the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 2299 (Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. V. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.), the Honourable the Supreme Court observed thus:-

………..The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative actions......... Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. ........Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, should the Court interfere.”

09. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any.

Srinagar 30.12.2022Ram Murti

Whether the judgment is speaking Whether the judgment is reportable (Sindhu Sharma) Judge : Yes/No : Yes/No