The court upheld the legality of restricting access to land for infrastructure repairs under Section 163 of the BNSS, emphasizing the urgency of preventing national loss due to electricity wastage.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the interim order dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 15976 of 2024, wherein the present appellant had raised challenge to the order dated 07.12.2024, passed under Section 163 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for shortthe ‘BNSS) corresponding to the earlier provisions of Section 144 of Cr.P.C., 1973.

2. Keeping in view the situation, the appellants/petitioners were given relief to the extent that the residents of the area could not be prevented from approaching their private land beyond the restricted area which had been obstructed for the Hydro Power Project.

3. The writ petition is still pending and is fixed for11.03.2025.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that by the order under challenge, the rights of the appellants have been affected and the residents of the village are not being allowed to approach the forest land/pastures by respondent No. 9-M/s KU Hydro Power Private Limited, and the learned Single Judge should have stayed the order passed by the S.D.M.

5. The order which was initially passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baijnath, District Kangra, was on account of the possibility of law and order problem, threats, public nuisance and possibility of clashes between the village residents and the private respondent as the residents of the village were not allowing the project authority to carry out repair and restoration work of the project after the leakage of the head of penstoke. In such circumstances, directions were issued to prohibit as a measure of emergency, the local residents of the village from assembling near and along the penstoke from its head region down to the Project power house and to carry any kind of arms, lethal, weapons, lathis, swords, knives and daggers, iron rods etc, for a limited period of 60 days. Thus, the order as such is effective from07.12.2024 to 07.02.2025.

6. It is thus apparent that almost 50% of the period as such has expired.

7. This case has a chequered history. On 10.05.2024, an incident of heavy abnormal leakage had occurred from the junction of penstock and surge shaft area of the project and the damage was not only caused to the Project, but also to the surrounding areas including private properties of the village. The generation in the Power Project was stopped w.e.f. 10.05.2024. A meeting was then convened in the office of the Tehsildar on 19.05.2024 and in the said meeting, after affording opportunity to both sides, a compensation to the tune of a sum of Rs. 2,24,56,960/- was assessed for the villagers on account of damages suffered by them due to the leakage of the penstock. This compensation was also included in the compensatory amount to the affected villagers by covering the loss to their crops for over next 10 years and the respondents were directed to remove the debris and restore the land to its original shape. However, on account of the Project Authorities not being allowed by the villagers to use the path in their village for accessing the Project site in order to repair the penstock leakage site and to make the Project functional again, the respondent No. 9 was forced to approach this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10265 of 2024, which was decided vide judgment dated 17.09.2024. (Annexure P-9).

8. Communication dated 15.07.2024 addressed by the Chief Engineer (Energy), Directorate of Energy, Himachal Pradesh to the Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra at Dharamshala, communication dated 08.07.2024 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Baijnath, District Kangra and communication dated 15.07.2024 from the Directorate of Energy, Himachal Pradedesh, were noticed to show that the repair at penstock leakage site was essential to avoid another disaster in the area during the heavy rains.

9. In such circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions by the learned Single Judge herein:

“Taking into cons