Allowed

Brihattar Janasimalu Nonke Janakalyan Samity v. the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Apdcl) and 6 Ors. (H)

Gauhati HC1 Dec 2020WP(C)/2938/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed APDCL to consider electricity connection applications for petitioners without insisting on Forest Department NOC, citing prima facie evidence that disputed land is not reserve forest, while reserving final determination of land title.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to consider electricity connection applications without insisting on Forest Department NOC.

Brihattar Janasimalu Nonke Janakalyan Samity Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010093712018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2938/2018

¶5

BRIHATTAR JANASIMALU NONKE JANAKALYAN SAMITY A SOCIETY DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, HAVING IS REGISTERED OFFICE AT JANASIMALU NONKE, BOTAHGULI, PO PANJABARI, PS SATGAON, GUWAHATI-37, IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, AND IS DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI HEMANTA DAS, AGED 38 YEARS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. (APDCL) AND 6 ORS. (H) BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-1, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN

¶8

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER GUWAHATI ZONE APDCL(LAR) SIXMILE GUWAHATI-22

¶9

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GEC /1 APDCL (LAR) ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7

¶10

4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (T) LOWER ASSAM ZONE GUWAHATI-1

¶11

5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER GUWAHATI

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

WILDLIFE DIVISION SANTIPUR GUWAHATI-9

¶14

6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶18

ORDER

¶19

01.12.2020

¶20

Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Deka, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 as well as Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

¶21

The writ petitioner’s Samity is constituted with as many as 114 members who claim to be the residents of Janasimalu NC Village of Dispur Revenue Circle. Pursuant to the eviction drive initiated by the Forest Department authorities for evicting illegal encroacher occupying land with in Amchang Reserve Forest, the authorities had apparently treated the members of the writ petitioner’s Samity also as encroachers and declined their request for issuance of NOC for obtaining electricity connection. The writ petitioner Samity, by invoking the common cause of its 114 members have, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

APDCL authorities to provide them with electricity connection in their residential units. By referring to the gazette notification dated 30.06.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. Mr. Bora, submits that the area coming under Janasimalu NC Village has been the subject matter of revenue re-settlement operation and therefore, the question of treating the writ petitioner as illegal encroachers of reserve forest land does arise in this case. He also submits that electricity is an essential commodity which cannot be denied to any citizen. Placing reliance on an earlier order passed by this Court on 12.01.2018 in connection with WP(C) No. 8011/2017, Mr. Bora submits that a similar order be passed in this case as well directing the APDCL authorities to grant electricity connection to the members of the writ petitioner Samity.

¶24

Ms. Deka, submits that the request for providing electricity connection to the premises of the members of the writ petitioner Samity could not be considered by the APDCL since they had failed to obtain NOC from the Forest Department.

¶25

The Forest Department has not filed any affidavit in this case. However, from perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 6 i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, I find that the said respondent has not opposed the claim of the writ petitioner made in the writ petition but has merely relied upon and referred to the Government notification dated 30.06.2010. If that be so, I have no hesitation in holding that the materials on record prima facie indicates that the Janasimalu NC Village of Dispur Revenue Circle is not included in a reserve forest area. Such being the position, I am of the view that the members of the writ petitioner’s Samity cannot be deprived of electricity connection merely on a presumption that they are occupying reserve forest land.

¶26

In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to consider the applications for electricity connection made by the members of the writ petitioner’s Samity, the list whereof is appended to this writ petition as Annexure-II.

¶27

If such applications are submitted by the individual members of the writ

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

petitioner Samity, the same be considered as per law and electricity connection be provided to them, if necessary, even a temporary connection, without, however, insisting on any NOC from the State Forest Department.

¶30

It is, however, made clear that the present order is only to provide electricity connection to the members of the writ petitioner’s Samity and therefore, this order does not in any way deal with the larger question as to the status of the land occupied by the members of the petitioner Samity.

¶31

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Brihattar Janasimalu Nonke Janakalyan Samity v. the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Apdcl) and 6 Ors. (H)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brihattar Janasimalu Nonke Janakalyan Samity v. the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Apdcl) and 6 Ors. (H)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Najir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Chhibber Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dwijendrajit Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

M/S. Shiva Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S. New Age Petcoke Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors.

Alsuma Begum Vs Renuja Khatun Patowary and 3 Ors.