In case of resistance from the landowner, permission from the District Magistrate may be necessary for fixing electric poles and laying overhead electric wires on private land.

( 1 ) -THE present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Impugned order dated August 31, 1991, whereby, the learned trial Court, refused to grant ex-parte stay, to restrain respondents, from digging any pit or fixing any electric poles or putting any electric wire, through the land of petitioners.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS case Is that they are the owners in possession of various lands, comprised in Mutvil No. 80/16 Min 17, Min 18, Min Mutvil No. 80, Khasra No. 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 27 Min (2 and half acres) and in 12 bighas 1 biswas in Mutvil No. 80 khasra no. 22 Mutvil 94 Khasra No. 1/2, 2/1, 2/2 and 33 bighas in Mutvil No. , 93 Khasra No. 14, 15, 6/2, 13, 14 Mutvil 94 Khasra 1/1, Mutvil 80 Khasra No. 21/1, Mutvil 81 Khasra No. 16/3, 25, Mutvil 53 Khasra No. 19, 20, 21/2, 22, 23, 24 12/2 Mutvil 72 Khasra No. 1/2, 2, 3, 4 and 7 situated in village Kishan Garh, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Petitioners I to 4 are members of one family and the land, is being used for farm houses and agricultural purposes. Petitioners I to 3 have got sanctioned the plans, from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for constructing the farm houses.

( 3 ) IT Is alleged that on February 28, 1991, some employees of respondent no. 2, bad come to the site and started digging pits, in the land of petitioners. On enquiry, it was revealed that they were the employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, respondent no. 2 herein, and were digging pits, for fixing electric poles and laying overhead high tension wires. On great persuation, officials of respondent no. 2 left the site. In these circumstances, and aggrieved by the threats of respondents, to dig pits, for the purpose of fixing poles and laying overhead high tension wires, petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, to restrain respondents, from doing the aforesaid acts. It is further alleged that in the written statement, respondents have stated that they had Issued one public notice, in the Hindustan Times dated July 7, 1989, thereby, informing the public in general, in respect of construction of 220 KV double circuit transmission lines from NTPC s 400 KV sub-station at Ballabhgarh, to the existing 220 KV sub-station at Mehrauli and, thereby, inviting objections from the public.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, according to petitioners, on August 29, 1991, officials of respondent no. 2, came to the land of petitioners and tried to dig pits there. The attempt, made by the officials, was thwarted by petitioners, on the inerference of neighbours.

( 5 ) IN these circumstances, petitioners moved another application dated August 30, 1991, in the trial Court, thereby, pray ing for ex-parte ad interim injunction. However, the trial Court, declined to grant ex-parte stay to petitioners.

( 6 ) VARIOUS contentions, both on law and facts, have been urged before me, by learned Counsel for parties. It is not necessary to deal with these contentions, for the reasons, that at this stage, it is not possible to make observation or decide the issues, involved in the case.

( 7 ) MR. Harish Malhotra, learned Counsel for petitioners, contended that the trial Court, while refusing to grant ex-parte stay, did not take into consideration the Judgment of this Court In Shri Surat Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1989 Delhi, 51, and the provisions, as contained in Indian Electricity Act, and the Rules framed thereunder.

( 8 ) MR. Malhotra argued that admittedly, petitioners did not give consent to respondents, to dig pits, for fixing the poles and for laying the overhead high tension electric wires. In other words, there was obstruction, offered by petitioners, to the officials of respondents, in digging the pits and doing other acts. In these circumstances, respondents cannot be allowed to do the aforesaid acts, without the permission of the District Magistrate.

( 9 ) ON the other hand, relying upon the Judgment of the Full Bench of Kerala High Cou