Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Ratish Kumar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ - C No. - 16986 of 2022
Decided On : 22-07-2022
Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Court finds that the decision falls under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and relegates the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order regarding the erection of electricity towers through his agricultural holding. The court found that the decision falls under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and relegates the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the challenge and directed the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules. It also directed the maintenance of status quo for a period of two weeks.
Issues: Challenge to the order regarding the erection of electricity towers through agricultural holding.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision falls under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and relegates the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules.
Final Decision: The court declined to entertain the challenge, directed the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules, and ordered the maintenance of status quo for a period of two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant petition seeks to challenge the order passed by respondent no. 2 on 31.5.2022, deciding the representation of the petitioner in respect of his grievance regarding erection of two electricity towers through his agricultural holding.
2. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that the impugned order was passed by respondent no. 2 in exercise of power under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. He submitted that the order passed by him is subject to revision by the appropriate Commission, as provided under Rule 3(3). It is urged that the petitioners have thus an alternative efficacious remedy and therefore, this Court may decline to entertain the challenge.
3. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to contend that the impugned order was passed by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
4. We have perused the impugned order and we find that the decision taken by respondent no. 2 squarely falls under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and is thus revisable by appropriate Commission, which is the State Regulatory Commission, constituted under Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the challenge and relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules.
6. In the end, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents be directed to maintain status quo for a short period, to facilitate filing of revision by the petitioner.
7. Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, states that according to his instructions, the towers have already been erected.
8. Be that as it may, we hereby direct that status quo as on date, shall be maintained for a period of two weeks from today.
9. The order has been passed in the presence of Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.
The decision falls under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and relegates the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules.
An authority's lack of jurisdiction to issue a restraining order under the Indian Telegraph Act invalidates the order and any actions taken under it, but public interest may preclude the removal of c....
The authority for erecting electric poles does not require landowner consent, only compensation for damages is mandated.
Mandamus directs enquiry outcome on objection to electricity infrastructure on private land.
Statutory authorities can erect high-tension electricity towers on private land without prior consent, provided they ensure minimal damage and compensate affected parties, in adherence to public inte....
The court upheld the authority of the licensee to lay transmission lines under public interest, dismissing the petitioner's objections as untimely and unfounded.
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
