Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, GANESH RAM MEENA, JJ.
Sunil Kumar Meena S/o Shri Jhandu Ram Meena – Petitioner
Versus
Shri Bhaskar A. Sawant – Respondent
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1133 of 2022, D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 11635 of 2022
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Umashanker Pandey.
For the Respondents: Neelam Sharma, Sameer Sharma.
Compliance with court orders and provisions of law for installation of transmission lines and erection of electricity poles is essential to avoid contempt of court.
Headnote:
Contempt - Transmission Line Installation - Compliance with Court Order
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petition was filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the court's order to ensure the laying of 33/11 KV transmission line in accordance with the relevant rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had complied with the court's order by conducting spot inspection, following the norms stated in the circular, and ensuring that the laying of transmission lines and erection of electricity poles were in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents had willfully disobeyed the court's order by not complying with the provisions of law for laying the transmission line.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the examination of the material on record, including the circular dated 17.05.2016 and the report of the Committee, which showed compliance with the norms and guidelines for the installation of transmission lines and erection of electricity poles.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the order of the Court had been complied with and disposed of the contempt petition, discharging the rule.
ORDER :
1. This contempt petition has been filed against willful disobedience of order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite there being an order of the Court for making spot inspection and ensuring laying of 33/11 KV transmission line in accordance with the provisions of law under the relevant rules, the respondents have not acted in accord with the provisions of the law and, thus, violated the directions issued by this Court.
3. We have gone through the reply filed by the respondents. Reply shows that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the District Collector, Dausa constituted a Committee and spot inspection was carried out, measurements were taken. In Para 4 of the reply, it has been submitted that in the matter of laying of transmission lines, norms stated in circular dated 17.05.2016 have to be strictly followed. The Committee examined the area and the site and has found that the height of 33 KV line adjoining the road is 19 feet which is as per the standard given in the circular and for road crossing standard height of 20 feet has also been maintained. The report also shows that wherever, there are houses, the ground clearance is 12 feet vertical and 6.5 feet horizontal and, therefore, the laying of transmission line is in accordance with law. The Committee also examined the issue regarding use of cement concrete in erection of PPC pole. Copy of circular dated 17.05.2016 and report of the Committee prepared on 18.11.2022 have also been placed on record.
4. It appears that during inspection a circular dated 18.11.2022 was also placed by the representatives and the same is also placed on record. That circular does not relate to the erection of electricity pole for laying transmission line.
5. Therefore, after having examined the material on record, we do not find that the laying of transmission line by erecting electricity pole is in violation of any rules, guidelines or any other norms with regard to erection of electricity pole and laying of transmission lines.
6. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the Court has been complied with.
7. Contempt petition is, therefore, disposed off.
8. Rule stands discharged.
