1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4202/2010 Nagpur Energy & Infrastructure Ltd. Nagpur Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. H. D. Dangre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd ,,. SEPTMBER, 2010. 1] Advocate Dangre for the petitioner-original plaintiff and Advocate Mehadia for the respondent-original defendant. 2] The petitioner is the company established for erection of 1100 Mega Watt Power Plants. They claim that on lands reserved for their project, the defendant has erected towers and are affixing supply lines. According to Advocate Dnagre, if this is allowed to happen the petitioners would be put to serious losses. He points out that till date the petitioner has invested huge amount and obtained several permissions and licences. The public notice inviting objection for said project was also published and respondent never raised objection to it. He has also invited attention to some 2 correspondence to show that at one point of time the respondent had agreed to re-align the towers and lines but later on have suddenly backed out. His contention is because of omission to raise any objection in response to the public notice and their subsequent conduct, respondent-defendant is now estopped from contending that they have right to erect towers or to carry the supply lines across the said lines. He points out only 3 survey numbers are involved in the present litigation. According to him, both the Courts have erroneously overlooked this aspect of the matter. 3] Advocate Mehadia, on the other hand, states that the defendant has entered into necessary arrangement with owners of those 3 survey numbers, they have paid compensation and thereafter work of erection of towers is also over. According to him, the public hearing was only in relation to clearance for environmental purposes and respondent- defendant was not expected to participate in it. 4] After hearing both counsel, I find that the Courts below have concurrently noted that erection of towers is complete and only supply lines are to be affixed. The work of the petitioner is yet to commence and they have not produced 3 even any drawing to show how their proposed work because is jeopardized by towers already affixed and proposed supply lines. The correspondence shows that at one point of time, respondent- defendant had agreed to consider the proposal for re-alignment. However, it was subject to the petitioners making of arrangement cite for alternate line, right of way and also the cost and expenditure therefor. It has come on record that till date the petitioner have not initiated any proceedings for acquisition of any land including 3 survey numbers involved in the present matter. Argument of estoppel cannot be of any assistance to petitioner/plaintiff at this stage as petitioner has not shown how it has altered its position to its prejudice. The issue needs to be looked into on merits, after relevant evidence is adduced. 5] I further find that both the parties are in power generation. In any case if and as and when such contingency arises, the petitioner and respondent both can sit together and resolve controversy. The said controversy cannot be subject matter of consideration before this Court in this petition. 6] I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of the Courts below. No case is made out to 4 warrant writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.