1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 262/2006 (Sindhi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. M. S.E.B. & anr. ) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 24 th JULY, 2008. Heard Shri Panpalia for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. The respondent-M.S.E.B. had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. According to the plaintiff, in the year 1962, it had laid down 66 K.V. line and the said line carries current of 66000 volts. On 30/1/1996, the defendant no.1 and its employee started construction work below the high tension line. Since the construction was illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants to demolish the structure and also to stop further construction. Since the defendant did not pay any heed to the notice, the suit was filed. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that they had made any 2 illegal construction below 66 K.V. line. It was denied that the construction was in violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, rules and Regulations or the Indian Standard Code of practice for Design, Installation and Maintenance of Overhead Power Line. The defendants, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court had framed the issues and held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the defendants have made construction within 18.5 meters radius below 66 K.V. line on 30/1/1996. The Court further held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the construction was illegal and unauthorised and in contravention of the Electricity Act. The Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable. The Court held that the construction made by the defendants was in contravention of the Rules 79 and 80 of the Electricity Rules 1956. (The trial Court had, however, mistakenly quoted that it was in contravention of Sections 79 and 80 of the Electricity Act). The findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed by the appellate Court in an appeal filed by the appellant. I have perused both the judgments. In both the judgments, the findings recorded by the Courts are pure findings of facts. Though the Court 3 had quoted that the construction was in contravention of Sections 79 and 80 of the Indian Electricity Act, this Court found that Sections 79 and 80 of the Indian Act were misquoted by the Courts. Since the construction made by the defendant was in contravention of the provisions of the Rules 79 and 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956, it cannot be said that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts was erroneous and perverse. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal, same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP