<-3 HIQH COURT OF JUDIC-ATURE CHHATTISOARH : SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK/C.J. WRIT 'ETITION N1 nc ^JT versus z. Smt. Sunita Gupta, aged about 35 year3, W/^ Hhrl RJSRI^V Quni^ 1B f^ll^n^il W/y faSl Ei E 0£Siijwy 5^UihT'LS, ! s>?, ^i^ll^t ijetli Lnclave, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (CG). Chhattisgarh Electriclty Board - Through the Secretai'y, Daganiya para, Raipur (00). Ssupsnnisnoing £Hyin^9f, L'nHaftisyfe State Eiectricity Board, Divisionai Office, Rilacsniir /f*f5i oii<5-5pyi \^^\sf. ,Mr & \/ RhriHhsr lissrrs^.-'i ^nun^ssi f*.r fh^ ni-a^t'ls^n.a? iS&^ili . iVi!. f^,> V . 'i^iii tU; ;43i i IS?.3!!JC!ui ^VUIISSI iV; Ui^S |i^^,;l!iSVEi'S?i ^ ('Passed on 01 Februan'. 2006) ^ The oetitioner ra the owner of the !and comcirised m Khasra >nd 506/7 in VVard No.7, Guru Ghasidas Nagar Ward, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). Ths petitionsr has compiained that the fsspondsnt ~ BGS."U hss proposeu ?G instsii "ci tfsnstofniEsr in 3 i'snu adjoining to the aforementloned lands of the petitioner. IS Is that if the transformer as by the respondent - is instalted. it would be dangerousiy ciosed to the iand of the petitioner and there wouid be likeilhood of accident at some point of time,, So alleging, the petjtioner has souaht for interi/ention of the Court to prevenf the respondenf - Board trom installing the transtormer. (2) !n ths writ petition jtse'f, It i-s disciossd t'hat having come to know of the proposal of the respond^nt - Board to instali transformer, one Geetaniali Enelave Vikas and Kalvan Samit on 22/08/'2005 submitted the representation opposing the installation of the transformer. it is also .6 — '2.- gte^g that ths p©titiQH@r ^lso submlttBd s r^Dresentstlon to ths respondent - Board in thot regard. Notwithstanding the above •^. oppositions, th®above opposition, the rsspondent - Board has faken steps to install the transformar. Ths faots stated in the writ patition themselvas would disciose that the Board has not agreed with the that the insta'iation of the transformer wou'd be dangerous to the and/or of the or the There is no for thls Court to pronounce upon the put forth by the Dstitionsr in this writ oetition. The auestion whether !f the Board insteJls a transformer in the proposed piace, that wouid be dangerous to persons and propertiea situate around the said place has to be answered on the basis of ©videncethat may be lea' by the parties. That question eannot be resolved in a summary proeaading under Artictas 226/227 of the Gonstjtutlon ssuSiBctoflty. fH ordar to QTant relici to thg p©tttion©r.it for the Court to the to and prove. thelr respectlve The brought before the Court csnnot b@ dscl^sd ontv on tba basls of ^ffld^vit®snd cQunter-sffldBvlts, |n Shat vie'.v.of the matter, ! dismiss the wrlt Detition, how'ever, rese-n'ing iiberty to the petitioner to work-out legal remedies by inatituting a suit in the iurisdictionai civil Court. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice S'3f»y^\