Smt. Satwant Kaur alias Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. v. Shri Rakesh Gupta, Chief Manager, Power Grid & Anr.

Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated

18.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur thereby dismissing application moved by plaintiffs for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) and also challenging judgment dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against order (Annexure P-3) has been dismissed. The plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants i.e Chief Manager of Power Grid Corporation of India ( in short, Grid Corporation) and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Grid Corporation from laying down or placing electricity supply lines of 400 KV overhead over the C.R No.1014 of 2009 -2- residential houses and land owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have alleged that laying of overhead power lines by the Grid Corporation was in progress as per sanctioned scheme. Later on, construction of a factory started. It was still under construction. In order to help the factory owners, diversion has been made in the route alignment of the electric line. By diversion of the route, the defendants now intend to lay overhead lines over the houses and land of the plaintiffs. The defendants inter alia pleaded that such project takes many years to complete. While laying down the transmission line, when the project reaches a particular point, check survey is done again and if after initial detailed survey, some institutions or religious buildings are found to be existing, then line has to be diverted. In the instant case, check survey was done in July, 2008 and Radha Soami Satsang Ghar and Institute of Management and Technology and residential houses were found existing. Consequently, slight diversion was ordered by the project officials. However, the plaintiffs later on did not allow the officials of the defendants to install tower in their land. The plaintiffs started raising construction after the check survey. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondents are diverting the route of the transmission line to favour owners of the factory under construction. However, it is for the experts of the Grid Corporation to decide appropriate route for the transmission line and this Court in the C.R No.1014 of 2009 -3- absence of expertise and relevant data and material cannot overrule the decision taken by experts of the Grid Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, the Act), it is only with the approval of appropriate Government that an overhead line can be installed, but in the instant case, no approval of the appropriate Government for the diversion of the route has been taken and, therefore, the Corporation has no power or authority to lay the transmission line over the land or houses of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the diversion of route has not been published and, therefore transmission line on the diverted route cannot be laid. Reliance in support of these contentions has been place on judgment of this Court in the case of Sarwan Singh versus Ranjit Singh and others, Vol. CII-(1992-2) PLR 649 and judgment of Orrisa High Court in the case of The Orissa State Electricity Board and another versus Pyari Mohan Patnaik and others, AIR 1978 Orissa

190. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that under Section 38 (1) of the Act, the Grid Corporation has been notified as Central Transmission Utility. Accordingly, under second proviso to Section 14 of the Act, the Corporation is deemed to be transmission licensee under the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents then referred to Section 164 of the Act which provides that the appropriate Government may by order in writing confer any of the powers which the Telegraph Authority possesses under the C.R No.1014 of 2009 -4- Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (in short, Telegraph Act) on any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act, for the purpose of placing of electricity lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity and for some other purposes. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that Central Government as appropriate Government, in exercise of power under Section 164 of the Act, has issued order dated

24.12.2003 published in Government Gazette of even date, thereby conferring powers under the Telegraph Act on the Grid Corporation for the purpose of laying electricity lines and electrical plant and for allied purposes. Under the Telegraph Act, Telegraph Authority has power to enter upon the land of anybody for the purpose of laying telegraph lines. Consequently, the same power has been conferred on the Grid Corporation for the purpose of laying transmission lines. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that Board of Directors of the Grid Corporation prepared revised standard Field Quality Plan (in short, FQ Plan) for transmission lines and thereby delegated power for route alignment and deviation from the route alignment. It was contended that defendant No.1 as Line Incharge has been given the power to sanction diversion in route alignment and accordingly defendant No.1 has sanctioned the same and, therefore, defendants have right to lay the transmission line over the land of the plaintiffs. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on various judgments namely E. Venkatesan C.R No.1014 of 2009 -5- and others versus Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras and others, AIR 1997 Madras 64, Maharashtra State Electricity Board versus Janardhan Bhausaheb Desai and another, AIR 1998 Bombay 75, M/s The Scindia Potteries Private Ltd. and another versus M/s Purolator India Ltd. and others, AIR 1980 Delhi 157 and CWP No.9134 of 2007 titled as Power Grid Corporation of India versus State of Haryana and others, Date of decision July 17, 2007. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Section 2(72) of the Act provides that ‘transmission lines’ means high pressure cables and overhead lines transmitting electricity. Consequently, ‘transmission lines’ include overhead lines. Under Section 164 of the Act, Grid Corporation has been conferred power possessed by Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act for placing of electricity lines or electrical plant for transmission of electricity. Thus the Grid Corporation has been given requisite authority to be exercised under the Telegraph Act for the laying of transmission lines which would also include overhead lines. The Corporation is accordingly laying the transmission lines in question. Route diversion is the point in controversy. However, as per revised FQ Plan shown by learned counsel for the respondents, requisite power has been conferred by the Grid Corporation on its officers for doing various acts for laying the transmission lines in question. Obviously, at every stage, for every step to be taken in the execution of FQ Plan, Grid Corporation cannot be approached by the officers for day to day affairs. Consequently, the Grid Corporation C.R No.1014 of 2009 -6- has conferred powers on different Officers for different purposes. For route diversion, power of approval has been given to Line Incharge. In the instant case, defendant No.1, who was made Line Incharge, has sanctioned the deviation in the route alignment. Consequently, I of the prima facie view that the defendants have right to lay the transmission line in question over the land of the plaintiffs as per diverted route sanctioned by the competent authority i.e defendant No.1. In addition to the prima facie case being in favour of the defendants as above, balance of convenience is also in their favour. A big project is being executed for laying transmission lines. Only for a small part of the transmission line passing over the land of the plaintiffs, the entire project is being withheld and delayed. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants and they would suffer irreparable loss and injury if temporary injunction is granted. On the other hand, the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable loss and injury because they can be compensated for the loss if any suffered by them as per provisions of the Telegraph Act which lays down procedure for payment of compensation to the effected landowners. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find that the plaintiffs/petitioners have failed to make out the necessary three ingredients for the grant of temporary injunction. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. C.R No.1014 of 2009 -7- However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit.

29.01.2010 A. Kaundal ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE