Mr. M.M. Kumar, ACG. C.J.: - The instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, has sought direction against respondent No.3 restraining them from constructing the school building underneath/beneath the High Voltage wire of 66 KV. It was alleged that digging for the foundation was going on for the purpose of constructing the school building which fell under the high voltage wires.

2. In response to notice of motion, having been issued, written statements have been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 4 i.e. the State of Haryana and District Town and Country Planner, Faridabad. A separate written statement has also been filed by respondent No.3, namely, Adhunik Educational & Cultural Welfare Society as well as by respondent No.2. The additional written statement has also been filed by respondent No.5 and the added respondent No.6. In the various orders passed by this Court violation of rule has been pointed out. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 14.05.2012 the following order was passed :-

“On 03.04.2012, this Court has issued comprehensive directions by asking respondent No.2 to refund either the money paid by respondent No.3 for the plot along with interest or should explore the possibility for allotment of a suitable alternative site to respondent No.3. The aforesaid course has been adopted on account of the reply filed by respondent No.5 which has been noticed in order dated 29.11.2011. A perusal of the order dated 29.11.2011 would show that construction of the school in proximity to the high tension wires would be patently violation of Rule 6 of the Work of Licence Rules, 2006 which has been framed under Section 176 read with sub Section 2 of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 because permitting of construction of boundary wall beneath high tension transmission line could endanger the precious life of human being and tinny tots who are coming to the schools. We have made observation that respondent No.2 would be at liberty to take necessary steps in view of the reply filed by respondent No.5.

A pointed attention was drawn to the violation of Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which provides that where a high or extra high voltage overhead line passes above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it must have all clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line. The reply also suggests that high tension wire is of 66000 volts. The danger of such building during rainy season has also been depicted in the aforesaid order.

Mr. Vipin Dey, Advocate appearing for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA/respondent No.2 has stated that the building has now come up. Be that as it may if any building has been construction in violation of the directions issued by this Court or by committing patent illegality which is endangering the human life, then necessary steps to comply with the law have to be taken which may include demolition of the building itself. Therefore, we direct respondents No.1 and 5 to flung into action immediately and issue notice to respondent No.5 . In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 shall not occupy the building nor permit any admission of the children in such school. The status report of the action taken be filed within two weeks by respondents No.1 and 5. List again on 30.05.2012.”

3. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has brought to our notice that the school is raising construction strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations and there is no violation in raising the construction. Mr. Aggarwal has also pointed out the school site has been allotted to respondent No.3 by HUDA-respondent No.2 and there are unauthorized constructions surroundings the school site. According to Mr. Aggarwal there is in fact mushrooming of illegal grabbing of land and construction of building is so high that it would violate the CEA Regulation 2010 made under Section 53 of the Electricity Act. Mr. Aggarwal on behalf of respondent No.3 stat