2003 Supreme(Kar) 647

Karnataka High Court
S.M.RAO - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 08-06-03
W.A. : 2669 of 1999

Headnote:Electricity Board erecting towers, drawing lines etc. -whether prior permission under the Act from the planning authorities necessary?

       KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 - Sections 2(1-C), 14, 76M -Electricity Board erecting towers, drawing lines etc. -whether prior permission under the Act from the planning authorities necessary? No.

       [S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] - The Board need not secure prior permission from the planning authority under the Planning Act before erecting high tension towers and laying wires, because, the above work is required to be carried out by it in terms of a grant made and direction issued by the authorities created under the Electricity Act and Supply Act. In other words, the work is required to be carried out by the Board in exercise of its power conferred by the statute.

       Cases Referred:

       AIR 1995 SC 142; AIR 1967 SC 1857; 276 SE 2d 179, 189 (W.VA 1981); 312 N.W. 2d 20, 25 (N.D. 1981); 694 f.2d 378, 383; 83 MO. 123, 137 (1884); 72 N.W. 713, 716 (Minn. 1897).

       Followed:

       AIR 1971 SC 2447; AIR 1973 SC 683; AIR 1976 SC 49; AIR 1981 AP 328; AIR 1963 SC 1047; AIR 1956 SC 285; AIR 1968 SC 850; AIR 1966 SC 1220.

       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Delegation of power

       The Electricity Board appointing a contractor to errect -towers and to carry out allied works -whether amounts to delegation of powers entrusted to it? No.

       [S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] -The Courts have made distinction between a delegation of a statutory power by a delegate in favour of a third person without authority granted by the parent Act and taking of assistance from such person in performance of a duty imposed on such delegate. This distinction is pointed out by the Supreme Court in its judgments in PRADYAT KUMAR Vs. CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (AIR 1956 SC 285: (1955) 2 SCR 1331) UNION OF INDIA Vs. P.K. ROY (AIR 1968 SC 850) EDWINGSTON BAREH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM (AIR 1966 SC 1220). In this case, the work was executed through a Class-I Electrical Contractor appointed by the Company with the prior approval of the Board and under the direct control and supervision of the Engineers of the Board strictly in accordance with the Scheme and the work order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Board has abdicated or delegated statutory function entrusted to it to an unauthorised person like the Contractor appointed by the Company. At the most, it can only be said that the Board/the Company in performing the duties entrusted to it took assistance of the Contractor. Taking of assistance of a person in performing a duty, statutory or otherwise, cannot be equated to a delegation of a power.

       Cases Referred:

       AIR 1995 SC 142; AIR 1967 SC 1857; 276 SE 2d 179, 189 (W.VA 1981); 312 N.W. 2d 20, 25 (N.D.1981); 694 f.2d 378, 383; 83 MO. 123, 137 (1884); 72 N.W. 713, 716 (Minn. 1897).

       Followed:

       AIR 1971 SC 2447; AIR 1973 SC 683; AIR 1976 SC 49; AIR 1981 AP 328; AIR 1963 SC 1047; AIR 1956 SC 285; AIR 1968 SC 850; AIR 1966 SC 1220.

       Powers of the Board to supply electricity by erecting towers, drawing lines etc.

       INDIAN ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948-

       Section 28 and Indian Electricity (supply) Act, 1948 -Section 51 - Board supplying additional power to WIDIA by erecting towers etc. -no scheme framed -whether permissible? Yes.

       [S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] - The question for consideration is whether the Board could supply electricity to consumers without framing a Scheme envisaged under Section 28 of the Supply Act, by virtue of power conferred upon it under Section 51 of the Electricity Act-read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. In other words, the question is whether the provisions of Section 28 of the Act limit the power of the Board for placing electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for transmission of energy to the consumers in terms of Section 51 of the Electricity Act. There is no such limitation in the provisions of Section 28 of the Supply Act. Therefore, it is permissible for the Board, in its discretion, to supply electricity to the consumers by erecting towers and lines without framing any Scheme under Section 28 of the Supply Act in that regard. Therefore, it is permissible for the Board, in its discretion, to supply electricity to the consumers by erecting towers and lines without framing any Scheme under Section 28 of the Supply Act in that regard. Therefore, the non-existence of the Scheme envisaged under Section 28 of the Supply Act before the Board issued Notification dated 18-02-1995, would not invalidate the steps taken by the Board.

       Cases Referred: Followed: AIR 1971 SC 2447; AIR 1973 SC 683; AIR 1976 SC 49; AIR 1981 AP 328; AIR 1963 SC 1047; AIR 1956 SC 285; AIR 1968 SC 850; AIR 1966 SC 1220.