V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE controversy raised in these writ petitions centres on the right of respondents 2 and 3 to draw service line for supply of electrical energy to the 4th respondent.

( 2 ) ). The petitioners herein own various extents of land described in the writ petition in Siddedahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North. The 4th respondent is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of certain goods whose main consumers are Central and State Governments. As per Order No. DE 87 EEB 92 Bangalore, dt. 12th May, 1993 of the Government of Karnataka the 4th respondent was sanctioned supply of additional power to an extent 500 KVA from the 2nd respondent on the basis of the recommendation of the 38th High Power Co-ordination Committee at its meeting held on 29-3-1993. The second respondent issued work order Annexure-G dated 27-5-1994, directing the 4th respondent to draw 66 KV H. T. U. G. cables for a distance of 3 kms, in terms of the condition made mention therein and also in compliance with the statutory provisions including the Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988. The petitioners while questioning this grant itself they also challenge the steps taken by the respondents to draw the service lines. They question the very formulation of the scheme for the supply of electricity to 4th respondent and as a successive steps taken for the implementation of the scheme. The grounds on which the challenge is sustained are many fold. They include mainly : (I) The work is being carried out by respondents 4 and 5 in violation of the work order issued by the 2nd respondent; (II) That the work is being executed by the 4th respondent himself without reference to the statutory requirements; (III) That Section 51 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 do not envisage the conferring of the powers under the Indian Telegraph Act in favour of either the 4th respondent or the 5th respondent. (IV) That the activities of the respondents amount to development as envisaged under the Karnataka Town Planning Act, 1961 and the activities violate Section 75-M thereof. (V) The provisions of the Indian Electricity Act is also violated.

( 3 ) THE petitioners also complain that there has not been due publication of the scheme as required under Sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act. It is averred that yielding to the undue influence of various land owners the alignment of the electrical line was changed, to exclude their land and to include that of the petitioners.

( 4 ) THESE points are highlighted by several subsidiary points which can be dealt with simultaneously while we consider the main points.

( 5 ) THE respondents 2 to 4 have filed lengthy statement of objections traversing and denying everyone of the allegations made by the petitioners. It is unnecessary to paraphrase the lengthy statements at this stage. The thrust of the contention is that there has not been violation of any statutory provisions while the preparation of the scheme, that the work order has been complied with while carrying out the work, that due notice has been given to all affected parties, that the need of the 4th respondent is a public purpose, that the service line is drawn in such a manner that minimum harm would be caused to the land owners through which the line passes that there may not be as much adverse affectation as has been complained of by the petitioners, that as the land is being used for placing the electrical post there would be no loss to the petitioners, that any variation to the work order effected is after keeping in view the safety aspect, that High Tension Underground cable is not feasible from the safety angle and that overhead cables are safer, that as per the present alignment there will be least injurious affectation to the petitioner, that all angles were kept in mind while preparing the scheme to draw the electrical line in question.

( 6 ) SEVERAL documents were produced by both the sides and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document