IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5507 of 2009 Between: Agarwal Foundaries Pvt. Limited, Reg. Office at Rama Towers, 2nd Floor, 5-4-83, TSK Chambers M.G.Road, Secunderabad-3, rep. by its Managing Director Pramod Agarwal, S/o. Maniklal Agarwal, aged 45 Yrs, R/o.2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. A.P. TRANSCO, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2 APCPDCL, 3rd floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-4. 3 The Superintending Engineer, TLC Circe, AP TRANSCO, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 4 The Principal Chief Conservator Forests, Government of A.P., Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) Counsel for Respondent No.4: G.P. FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not charging the 132 KV line from Manoharabad 132 KV sub-station to the petitioner-factory, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.4. The petitioner is a HT consumer, which is availing power supply from respondent Nos.1 to 3 under a HT agreement. Presently, the petitioner is being supplied power through 33 KV line. As the petitioner required additional demand of 6 MVA, it applied for sanction of the same. By proceedings dated 29-06-2007, the Chief Engineer, Construction, A.P.Transco, prepared the scheme and estimates for construction of 132 KV supply line from 132 KV sub-station, Manoharabad, to the petitioner-factory and the said proposal was approved by respondent No.3-Superintending Engineer, TLC Circle, A.P.Transco. According to the petitioner, erection of towers was not involved in the reserve forest and it is only the conductors, which pass above the reserve forest (Manoharabad Forest Block) at a height of 30 meters to a length of 165 meters. The petitioner specifically averred that when respondent Nos.1 to 3 insisted on its obtaining approval from the Forest Department, it requested them to permit execution of work pending approval. Thereupon, respondent No.1 obtained undertaking dated 11-04-2008 from the petitioner that it will take responsibility for cost and liability towards obtaining of permission from the Forest Department. In pursuance of the said undertaking, erection of towers and laying of line was completed. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the Forest Department has not, so far, given formal approval, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not been charging the line, which is lying idle since December, 2008. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent no.4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 on behalf of himself and respondent Nos.1 and 2, the facts narrated above have not been denied. It is stated that on the undertaking given by the petitioner, these respondents approved the line profiles technically, pending approval from the forest authorities, and that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to get the clearance from the forest authorities as assured by him. The respondents justified their action in not charging the line only on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained the forest clearance. The claim of the petitioner that no poles have been erected in the reserve forest area is not disputed by any of the respondents. In letter dated 06-03-2009, addressed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle to respondent No.4-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, it is mentioned as under: “The Divisional Forest Officer, Medak in part- II has reported that no CA land is required since the transmission line is laid overhead and there will not be any damage to the tree growth and also flora and fauna and proposed this project duly recommended with the certain conditions mentioned therein. The site is situated adjacent to the Manoharabad RF block, N.H.-7 of Ramayampet Range and it is the control of the A.P. Enrolment Dept. The site inspection note of the Divisional Forest Officer, Medak is furnished in the enclosed proposals.” Therefore, this is evidently a case where destruction of forest growth is not involved. If at all a formal clearance is required in the extant statutory provisions from the forest department, in the letter referred to above, the Chief Conservator of Forests had, in fact, recommended for grant of formal approval by the State Government. In its bond executed with respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner specifically undertook responsibility for all the losses that AP Transco may sustain in laying 132 KV line across the Forest land. Under these circumstances, I find no justification, whatsoever, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not charging the line merely on the ground that formal approval from the Government is not obtained by the petitioner. In its letter dated 20-01-2009, the petitioner informed the Joint Managing Director of A.P.Transco that while the grant of forest clearance is mere formality, postponing the charging of the line is causing loss of revenue to the extent of Rs.5 Crores per month to the A.P.Transco apart from denying direct employment to 1500 workers and indirect employment to 6000 workers. In the face of the above undisputed facts, I am of the opinion that not charging the line, which is already laid, is to the detriment of not only the petitioner but also to the A.P.Transco. In addition to loss of revenue, it is undeniable that if the electricity is transmitted through higher voltage, the transmission losses will come down. Therefore, supply of electricity through higher voltage saves electricity, which is in acute shortage in the entire country. Therefore, immediate charging of the line is not only in the interest of the petitioner and A.P.Transco, but also in the national interest. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to forthwith charge the 132 KV line from Manoharabad 132 KV sub- station to the petitioner-factory subject, however, to the condition that the petitioner alone shall be responsible for civil and penal consequences in the event the Government of A.P. declines to grant forest clearance permission for laying the line over the reserve forest. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 5th June, 2009 LUR