RSA No.162 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.162 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: January 28, 2011. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Aliwal and others. .. Appellants VERSUS Sartaj Singh. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Adarsh Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit on 10.12.2001, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants- appellants, from installing electric poles and spreading cable over the said electrical poles from the suit land belonging to the plaintiff forcibly and without the consent of the plaintiff besides seeking a . . . 1 RSA No.162 of 2011 (O&M) mandatory injunction for removing all the electrical poles which have already been installed and the wires passing over the land of plaintiff illegally and forcibly. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Batala on 29.11.2007, restraining the defendants-appellants from installing electric poles and spreading cables over the said electric poles from the land of the plaintiff- respondent illegally and forcibly and without due course of law. A mandatory injunction was also issued to remove the said electric wires passing over the land of the plaintiff-respondent. The lower appellate Court, in an appeal, filed by the defendants-appellants slightly modified the decree and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court granting mandatory injunction with a specific direction to the defendants-appellants that the electric poles erected on the land of the plaintiff would be removed but at the same time a liberty was granted to the defendants-appellants that they would be entitled to notify the scheme under the provisions of Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, within 60 days from the date of passing of the judgment and plaintiff-respondent will be entitled to file a representation within 30 days from the said publication. The said representation will be considered and disposed of within 15 days of the receipt of said representation. It was directed that the entire process will be completed within 3 months after the passing of the judgment and the electric poles will be removed from the land after adopting the procedure. . . . 2 RSA No.162 of 2011 (O&M) The Punjab State Electricity Board, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below has filed this second appeal claiming that the convenience of the general public has not been considered by the Courts below. It was submitted that under Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, the Board has got an authority to place any wires, poles, lines, brackets and other appliances for the transmission and distribution of the electricity. I have heard Mr.Adarsh Malik, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and carefully gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and 132 KVA line is passing through the same area. An additional 11 KV line has been erected over the land of the plaintiff in order to give supply to M/s Guru Teg Bahadur Rice Mills, Village Sheikhupura, after the said consumer deposited ` 2,07,042/-. After sanctioning the estimate list of material which was provided through S.D.O. (Store), Punjab State Electricity Board, Batala, lines have been installed but at the same time it is also a fact that the plaintiff-respondent has neither been given any notice nor an opportunity to file objections against the scheme of installation of the poles and lines. Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, ha been relied upon by the Courts below which provides that every scheme has to be published in official gazette and in local newspaper with an objective to give due notice to the owner of the land through which poles are to be erected or lines are to be drawn. . . . 3 RSA No.162 of 2011 (O&M) After enabling the affected party to file a representation, the electricity Board has got an authority to fix poles and pass lines over the land of the owner. The Courts below have followed the judgment in cases Smt.Susama Patel Vs. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., and others, 1998 (3) Civil Court Cases (328) (Orissa) and Sarwan Singh and others Vs. Ranjit Singh, 1995 Civil Court Cases, 322 (P&H), laying down that an affected person has to be given an opportunity to file representation and the authorities are required to consider the said representation. Once it is established that the statutory right of a person to enjoy his properties has been curtailed without the sanction of law, the civil Court hag got jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction directing an authority to perform the statutory obligations. No doubt, the defendants have got a right to achieve an ultimate public interest by providing electricity but at the same time an affected person has also got a statutory right of not being deprived of his property except by an authority of law. Right of an aggrieved person to submit objections and to get a decision in accordance with law cannot be prejudiced. The rights of the defendants-appellants have been safeguarded by the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. There is a concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below that necessary mandatory provisions of law have not been followed by the defendants- appellants. Counsel for the defendants-appellants has cited judgment in case H.Bhadur Singh Vs. The Divisional Engineer, . . . 4 RSA No.162 of 2011 (O&M) Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and another, 1991 Civil Court Cases 525 (A.P.), wherein a writ petition filed by an aggrieved person who had been affected by laying of electric lines over his land was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that he has got a right to claim compensation and that the writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not an appropriate remedy warranting interference. Ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. No ground is made out for interference in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 28, 2011. rka . . . 5