The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3376 of 2014 Sub Divisional Officer, Kalahandi West Electrical Division, Junagarh, Kalahandi …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Dash, Adv. -versus- Padmalochan Dandasena …. Opposite Party CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 15.03.2024 08. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the award dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kalahandi, Nuapada in PLA Case No.78 of 2013. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 4. None appears for the Opposite Party at the time of call. 5. The brief fact of the case is that the village Jamuna Bahal comes under the Control of Kalahandi West Electrical Division and Sub Divisional Officer Junagarh. Power supply has been given to the consumers of village by drawing L.T. Line and the consumers are getting Page 1 of 7 // 2 // power supply from a 100 KVA Transformer installed in the village. The said line was drawn during the period of erstwhile OSEB i.e. more than 40 years back and no objection has been raised at any point of time by the Opposite Party or any villagers with regard to drawal of supply line, installation of poles etc and more than 45 numbers of consumers including the family of the Opposite Party are getting power supply from the said line. 6. Due to proper maintenance of the supply system, the consumers of the locality are getting power supply without any disturbances. By the time, supply line was drawn, there was no house below the said supply line and no complaint has also been lodged at any point of time regarding any danger to any of the villagers. Long after drawal of supply line, the family of the Opposite Party has constructed a house adjacent to the supply line without any intimation to the petitioner licensee. 7. The Opposite Party/Padmalochan Dandsena filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with the allegations that supply line has been drawn on his land and that line is causing danger to the Page 2 of 7 // 3 // family members and the livestock and at any moment, if there is snapping electric line, there may be death in the family. He has prayed for shifting of the line to some other place. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner being the respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat filed its objection to the prayer for shifting alleging that the line has been drawn more than 40 years back and no objection has been raised at any point of time, during drawal of the line. He has also submitted that it is not possible to shift the old line, which may create law and order problems and litigations from various angles. In case, any such step is taken for shifting of the line, it would be difficult to get a suitable land for such shifting and there may be disruption of power supply for months together. Apart from the above facts, it was submitted that the application is not maintainable since the allegations are not coming under the purview of the section 22(A) of the Act, which defines the public utility service. It was also submitted that the dispute is in the nature of civil dispute which can be adjudicated by a civil court. 8. Without deciding the question of maintainability referring to a decision reported in 2012 (8) SCC Page 243, Page 3 of 7 // 4 // the Permanent Lok Adalat observed that the submission of the petitioner that the case is exclusively cognizable by the civil court is unfounded and misplaced one. With the above observation, by order dated 26.12.2013, the Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the case of the Opposite Party and directed for shifting of the electric line sufficiently away from the house of the Opposite Party so as not to cause any damage to life of his family members or livestock within period of one month. Hence, the present writ application has been filed to redress the grievance of the petitioner. 9. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a similar issue has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2023 wherein, the Petitioners representing the Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Limited (TPCODL) have challenged the order dated 07.04.2021 delivered in the complaint case being GRF, BBSR, CC no.165/2021, Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. By the order dated 07.04.2021 impugned therein the GRF directed the Petitioners to take all necessary steps to remove the distribution transformers having capacity of 500 KVA and 200 KVA from the private plots of the complainant to Page 4 of 7 // 5 // a convenient place, but without encroaching upon the private plot of the complainant (the Opposite Party No.1 therein). The Division Bench of this Court allowed that Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioners/TPCODL vide the judgment dated 14.03.2023.Therefore, he submits that this Writ Petition may be allowed in the light of the judgment dated 14.03.2023 stated supra. 10. Perused the impugned order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kalahandi, Nuapada in PLA Case No.78 of 2013 as well as the Writ Petition and the judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Division bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.21035 of 2021. 11. Upon perusal of the same, this Court is of the view that issue involved herein is similar to the issue involved in W.P.(C) No.21035 of 2021. The ordering portion of the judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.21035 of 2021 is extracted below. XXX “35. Having appreciated the rival contentions as advanced by the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the GRF did not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to shifting of the transformers in as much as by rules/practice directions as framed under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, it has Page 5 of 7 // 6 // been clearly provided under [Rule-3 of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006] that at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land from which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line has been fixed, shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the Officers so authorized may give order in writing directing any such works support, stay or struck to be removed or altered. This provision has been supplemented by the provisions of the order dated 20.02.2019, which are substantially pari materia to the provisions of Rule-3 of the Works of Licensee Rule, 2006. 36. Therefore, either the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police; if he is so authorized to exercise such power is the authority which will deal with such dispute. As such, the order dated 07.04.2021, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is interfered with and set- aside as being issued without any jurisdiction. But the opposite party No.1 is given liberty to approach the authority, i.e. the District Magistrate of the district where the district where the opposite party No.1's land is RIS situated for removing the transformers which have been installed without her prior permission and for granting compensation, if any. 37. Such petition shall be filed within a period of fifteen days from the date of receiving a copy of this order, to the District Magistrate, if the opposite party No.1 is so inclined. 38. We direct the District Magistrate to decide the issue in the dispute, if he is approached by the opposite party No.1, and pass the final order Page 6 of 7 // 7 // within, a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the petition from the opposite party No.1, in accordance with law. 39. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed, subject to the liberty granted to the opposite party No.1. 40. There shall be no order as to costs.” 12. In such view of the matter, the order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kalahandi, Nuapada in PLA Case No.78 of 2013 is set aside as being issued without any jurisdiction. However, the Opposite Party is given liberty to approach the Authority i.e. the District Magistrate of the district where, the Opposite Party’s land is situated for shifting the electric line which has been drawn and for granting compensation if any. 13. Further, the District Magistrate to decide the issue in the dispute, if he is approached by the Opposite Party and pass order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the petition to be filed by the Opposite Party in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Sumitra Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2024 19:16:55 Page 7 of 7