IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6096 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 06, 2011. Gurnam Singh and another .....Petitioners versus Punjab State Transmission Corporation and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 11.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) whereby their objections against laying of 66 KV (Double Circuit) line from village Chhajli to village Sekhuvas by erecting towers have been turned down by passing a speaking order. The above stated order has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 5.1.2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.169 of 2011 filed by the petitioners. While rejecting the objections of the petitioners, the respondents have observed as follows:- “......The 66 KV Sunam-Chajjli line is feeding the load of proposed 66 KV Sub Station Sekhuvas safely as only two nos. Sub Stations, namely, 66 KV Jakehwal and 66 KV Chajli are being catered supply from this C.W.P.No .6096 of 2011 2 line. The rough sketch showing the feeding position of both these lines is also attached herewith as Annexure -1. Moreover, it is economical to connect Sekhuvas Grid from Chajjli and instead of 66 KV Chhahar Kouhrian as the line/equipment cost involved for the former is Rs.231.62 lacs. Whereas, for the latter it comes to Rs.603.24 lacs, thereby rendering a saving of Rs.371.61 lacs. Further, no other route except Sunam-Chajjli line is capable/techno-economically viable to give feeding line to proposed 66 KV Grid Sub Station Sekhuvas.....” It may be mentioned here that before rejecting the petitioners' objections, the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Corporation afforded personal hearing to them on 10.2.2011 and explained as to why the proposed line is more viable as compared to one suggested by the petitioners. Those reasons are duly incorporated in the report submitted by the Deputy Chief Engineer which has also been appended with the impugned order. The rough sketch plan attached with the impugned order also substantiate the stand of the Corporation. No case to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of juridical review of the writ Court is made out. Dismissed. April 06, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE