Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
M/s. Les Ateliers De Pondicherry Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Director Aditya Goenka
Versus
Pondicherry Electricity Department, represented by the Supervisor & Another
W.P.No.25793 OF 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 10-11-2011
Indian Telegraph Act - Erection of Transmission Lines - Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, sought to quash a notice issued by the first respondent under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The notice pertained to the erection of a 230 KV line passing through the petitioner's lands for which the company had sought to convert the lands into industrial use.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned notice was issued without legal authority as the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 had been repealed by the Electricity Act, 2003. The court also found that the impugned notice, issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, did not adhere to the procedures specified in the Act for considering objections and resistance by landowners. The court set aside the impugned notice and directed the petitioner to file objections afresh, to be referred to the District Magistrate for appropriate consideration.
Issues: 1. Validity of the notice issued under the repealed Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 2. Compliance with the procedures specified in the Indian Telegraph Act for considering objections and resistance by landowners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned notice, issued under the repealed Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was illegal and without authority. Additionally, the court found that the notice did not adhere to the procedures specified in the Indian Telegraph Act for considering objections and resistance by landowners.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned notice, and directed the petitioner to file objections afresh, to be referred to the District Magistrate for appropriate consideration. The parties were directed to maintain status quo as on the date of the judgment in respect of the subject lands.
Heard Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.D.Sreenivasan, learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) for the first respondent and Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned counsel for the second respondent.
2. A notice in No.523, dated 15.10.2011, issued by the first respondent in exercise of the powers vested with the Pondicherry Electricity Department/EHV, under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, as amended up-to-date, has been called in question in this Writ Petition, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to adopt the final proposal conveyed by their letter SR-II/PDY/CAO/F-PED/2009 2420, dated 29.09.2009.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(a) The petitioner is a private limited company, hereinafter referred to as "the company". The company was originally promoted by a French company, namely, M/s.Societe Des Atliers Louis Vuitton and being managed by their officials in accordance with law. The shareholding pattern of the company has been changed in June 2011; a new set of promoters entered the company and one Aditya Goenka is elected as a Director on 20.06.2011.
(b) The company is manufacturing and selling various types of leather goods. It is carrying on business from two factoriesone located at 15/7, Vazhudavoor Road, Kurumbapet, Puducherry and the other located at S.F.No.9/9, 9/8, 8/2, Permabai Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District. It bought a large parcel of lands situate at Field R.S.Nos.43, 13/1, 13/3A, 13/3B, 15/1, 15/2, 16/2, 16/3, 16/4A, 16/4B, 17/1A, 17/3A, 17/3B, 17/3C, 17/3D, 17/3E, 17/3F and 17/4, Thondamanatham Village in Villayanur Commune (hereinafter referred to as the subject lands), of an extent of 95,000 Square meters in all. The subject lands were purchased with the objective of consolidating all the factories and to set up a state-of-the-art comprehensive facility to manufacture leather goods.
(c) After purchase of the subject lands, the company sought to convert the same into industrial use for the purpose of setting up a factory and submitted a single window common application before the District Industrial Centre, Puducherry for HT power feasibility certificate. It applied for necessary planning permission to the Government of Puducherry for setting up an industry in the lands.
(d) While so, on 11.07.2008, the Electricity Department of Puducherry/first respondent herein informed the company that the Department is laying a new 230 KV line and the proposed 230 KV line would pass through the lands of the petitioner-Company. The first respondent also requested the company to provide sufficient space for erecting 230 KV towers. Since the proposed line was to pass through the front portion of the subject lands, the company initiated steps to lay the transmission line in a manner that it would not affect its plan to set up the industry and, at the same time, not to affect the proposed transmission line.
(e) In the meantime, the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Puducherry, on 22.01.2009, communicated its no objection to the company for setting up an industry in the subject lands. On 14.05.2009, the Superintending Engineer-I of the first respondent sent a letter to the company informing that they have discussed with the second respondent about the conversion of the proposed 230 KV line into 230 KV UG cable system and the letter also set out the requirement of the second respondent to take up the cable laying works and sought acceptance of the company within a week to the terms of the second respondent, for which, the company replied vide letter dated 22.05.2009 seeking alignment sketch that was to be attached to the letter dated 14.05.2009, but was inadvertently omitted to be attached. The first respondent, vide its letter dated 02.06.2009, enclosed a copy of the sketch and informed that if no reply was received, the first respondent wo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
