Disposed

Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023A227/7106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Article 227 regarding a stay on high tension tower installation. The court directed the petitioner to file applications regarding non-joinder of parties and temporary injunction rules, directing the trial court to expedite consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file applications; trial court to consider them expeditiously.

Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172932

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7106 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶8

"i. Issue appropriate order or direction to set aside the ex-parte order dated 17.5.2023 passed by Civil Judge ( S.d.) Basti in Civil Suit No. 123/2023 ( Ramgarib Kisan Uchchatar Vidyalaya Kathautiya Vs. Sanjeev Goyal) and permit to the petitioner to installation of high tension tower No. 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 as per tower schedule dated 30.12.2022, 220 KV SC Line from 400 KV SS Basti to tower no. 180 of existing 220 KV Sohawal Gonda Line/over the land of the plaintiffs."

¶9

It appears that an Original Suit No. 123 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiffrespondent no.3 seeking a relief of permanent injunction in respect of plot no. 715 area 9.4200 hectare for restraining the defendant-respondent nos. 4 and 5 from erecting any Tower and from affixing of high tension electricity wire. The plaint case was that a school is being run on the plot in dispute, in which various facilities are available for students which will be completely disrupted in case tower are erected.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit itself is not maintainable given the provision of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. It is further stated that the petitioner which is a necessary party has been deliberately not impleaded as defendant in the aforesaid suit and only the contractor, defendant-respondent nos. 4 and 5 have been impleaded and by the impugned order dated 17.5.2023, an ad-interim injunction has been granted by the trial court.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner would have remedy of filing appropriate application under Rule 3A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances, it is for the petitioner to move appropriate applications, in which it may raise the plea that the suit is liable to be

¶13

defeated for non-joinder of necessary parties and also move for adjudication of the application for temporary injunction in terms of Rule 3A of Order 39 CPC.

¶14

In case any such applications are filed by the petitioner accompanied by authenticated copy of the order passed today, the trial court is directed to consider the same and pass an appropriate order expeditiously and not later than one month from the date of filing of the said applications.

¶15

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 28.8.2023 sfa/

¶17

(Jayant Banerji, J)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrika Vs Nar Singh

Smt. Azeezan and 6 Others Vs Smt. Khushnood and 22 Others

Prem Kishan Vs Smt. Vimla Devi and 3 Others

Saurabh Bansal Vs Smt. Mona @ Monika Bansal

Ram Shingar Vs Surendra Bahadur Singh

Muddasir Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others