1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5604/2010 (Ram Annaji Tamboli VERSUS The State of Mah. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amrish Joshi, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 3. Shri G.E. Moharir, counsel for the R-2. Shri Anil S. Mardikar, counsel for the R-4. Shri Atul Pande, counsel for the R-5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 19 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent no.3-District Magistrate- Collector, Wardha granting permission to the respondent no.2-the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited to complete the work of laying of Hinganghat-Jam 132 KV Double Electric Line and further directing the petitioner and other land owners not to obstruct the said work only on the ground that the respondent no.2 has constructed the Sub-Station on the Public Cart Way. Though the petitioner had initially challenged the impugned order dated 30.09.2010, the petitioner had restricted his challenge to the impugned order only on the aforesaid ground. It prima-facie appears that the petitioner has erroneously joined the respondent nos.4 and 5 as party respondent to this petition, though the respondent no.4 and 5 2 were not the parties to the proceedings before the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.4 was not a party to any of the proceedings, which were pending between the parties before the Tahsildar. The respondent no.2 has presented the additional submissions in pursuance of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the previous date of hearing, in the Court. The same are accepted on record. It is stated in the additional submissions by the respondent no.2 that the Sub-Station is not constructed on the public cart way. In fact, certain statements are made in the submissions to show that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is incorrect. It is also stated by the respondent no.2 in paragraph 3 of the submissions that without prejudice to the other submissions made in the additional submissions, in case, the cart way/path way is recognized, the said area shall be made available, if the same is passing through the property of the respondent no.2. Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 3, states on the basis of the instructions received by the learned Assistant Government Pleader from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat that the Sub-Station of the respondent no.2-Company is not erected/constructed on the public cart way. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 3 and in view of the additional submissions filed by the respondent no.2, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 on 30.09.2010 restraining the petitioner 3 and the other land owners from obstructing the laying of the Double Electric Lines. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE