Dismissed

Aparna Bhowmik v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2019WP(C)/73/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a widow seeking direction to shift an APDCL transformer from her residence frontage. Court dismissed petition finding transformer installed by side, not front, and no evidence of proposed shop or electricity connection application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to shift transformer granted.

Aparna Bhowmik Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010000612019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 73/2019

¶5

1:APARNA BHOWMIK

¶6

W/O LATE PARITOSH BHOWMIK, RESIDENT OF SALBARI, WARD NO. 25, P.O. AND DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/ COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 4TH FLOOR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01 ASSAM INDIA.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

¶12

THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM INDIA.

¶13

4:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER BONGAIGAON ELECTRICAL DIVISION THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. BONGAIGAON

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM PIN- 783380

¶16

5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BONGAIGAON ELECTRICAL DIVISION SUB-STATION THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. NATUNPARA BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S SARMA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 11-02-2019

¶23

Heard Mr S S Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr B D Das, learned Senior Counsel for Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL).

¶24

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to shift the proposed transformer from in front of the entrance gate of her residence to any appropriate location.

¶25

Case of the petitioner is that she is a widow, her husband having passed away on 23.10.2018, following prolonged illness. Presently, she is facing financial crisis. She is residing in a house constructed by her late husband over a plot of land measuring 1 katha 17.5 lechas situated at village Salbari, Bongaigaon. It is stated that after the death of her husband, petitioner is planning to open a shop in her residential premises to meet the expenses of the family comprising of two sons who are pursuing their studies.

¶26

On 07.12.2018, petitioner found some people from APDCL erecting pillar in front of her residential premises. On enquiry, she was told that a transformer would be installed in that place. Petitioner immediately wrote to the concerned APDCL authorities to shift the proposed transformer as otherwise, it would cause inconvenience to her, but notwithstanding her representation APDCL

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

continued the related work for installation of transformer. She then approached various authorities of APDCL but without any success. Hence, the writ petition.

¶29

When the writ petition was moved on 07.01.2019 learned Standing Counsel, APDCL was directed to inform the Court as to what was the stand of APDCL to the request of the petitioner for shifting of transformer from in front of her residence in view of the contention of the petitioner that such installation would adversely affect the shop proposed to be started by the petitioner to earn her livelihood. An interim order was passed to the effect that such transformer should not be made operative.

¶30

In the meanwhile, APDCL has filed an interlocutory application for vacation of the interim order dated 07.01.2019. It is stated that a new 100 KVA distribution transformer has been installed under IPDS Scheme at Salbari area as the existing transformers of the area have become overloaded due to increase in demand. Following site inspection and opinion of the Ward Commissioner, a transformer was installed near the petitioner’s house on municipal land and not in front of the petitioner’s frontgate. It is stated that after the interim order was passed by this Court a new gate appears to have been hurriedly constructed recently by the petitioner near the transformer site, which was not there previously. It is stated that the transformer has already been erected, which is by the side of the petitioner’s residence and not in front of the main entrance.

¶31

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record, including the photographs annexed to the interlocutory application.

¶32

From the photographs, it is seen that the transformer has been installed by the side of the petitioner’s residence. The main entrance gate is at the front of the residence and the photographs disclose an opening on the side of the residence barricaded by tin-sheets. Annexure-N photograph shows a small gate at the side of the residence of the petitioner, which is behind the transformer constructed.

¶33

Prima facie , the transformer has been installed not in front of the main gate of the residence of the petitioner. As pointed out in the interlocutory application, this site was selected by the officials of APDCL after taking opinion of the Ward Commissioner. Grievance of the petitioner that such installation of transformer would jeopardize her proposed shop is difficult to accept as no such shop is visible in the photographs. There are also no documents on record to show any application by or on behalf of the petitioner before the municipal authorities to open any shop or any permission by the municipal authorities to the petitioner to open such shop. There is also no application by the petitioner

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

before the APDCL authorities for electricity connection to such shop.

¶36

In such circumstances, Court is of the view that no case for interference has been made out by the petitioner.

¶37

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Aparna Bhowmik v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparna Bhowmik v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Baishya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Abedur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Renu Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smti Basanti Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Puna Ram Gogoi Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 3 Ors.

The Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 4 Ors. Vs Smt. Aparna Bhowmick