M/S. Kudgi Transmission Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:6464 WP No. 52792 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 52792 OF 2017 (GM-TEL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. KUDGI TRANSMISSION LIMITED A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: POST BOX NO.979, MOUNT POONAMALLEE ROAD, MANAPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 089. AND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. VIJAYARAGHAVAN.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.DEVAIAH.I.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVARAJ.K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶15

MR. D.BASAVARAJ S/O DODDAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT DIVISHA, 4^TH CROSS, ASHOKANAGAR, TUMKUR-572 102.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.B.TOTAD., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:6464 WP No. 52792 of 2017

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.Devaiah.I.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.Devaraj.K.S., for the petitioner, Sri.Srinivas Kumar., HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.S.B.Totad., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶23

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B, the orders dated:06.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-F and G and the Memorandum dated:14.11.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M.

¶24

3. The short facts are these:

¶25

M/s. Kudgi Transmission Limited - the petitioner has drawn 765 KV (double circuit) overhead transmission line in land bearing Sy.7/1 (New Sy.No.7/5) of Vasantha Narasapura Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District which

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:6464 WP No. 52792 of 2017

¶28

was owned by the second respondent. On account of the damage caused as a result of the drawing of the overhead transmission line, the second respondent was paid a sum of Rs.18,87,503/- as a full and final settlement in the year 2016.

¶29

As the matter stood thus, the second respondent filed an application purportedly under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur claiming compensation on the ground that amount paid by the petitioner was very meager and is not as per the prevailing market price. Upon service of notice, the petitioner filed objections and urged several contentions. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated:24.10.2017 ordered for tripping of the line to SLDC (Southern Region Load Dispatch Centre ) on the pretext that L & T Company is not attending the hearing of the matter and fixed the next date of hearing as 13.11.2017. On a request made by the L & T officials, the date of the hearing was proponed to 09.11.2017. An order for the spot inspection was made on 09.11.2017. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:6464 WP No. 52792 of 2017

¶32

4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶33

contentions.

¶34

Counsel Sri.Devaiah.I.S., in presenting his arguments, strenuously urged that filing an application purportedly under Section 10 of the Telegraphic Act is unsustainable in law. He argued by saying that the line was drawn back in the year 2016 and the compensation amount has been paid to the second respondent. Counsel vehemently contended that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in proceeding with the matter. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶35

AGA and counsel for the second respondent justified the action of the Deputy Commissioner. Counsel Sri.S.B.Totad., argued by saying that the compensation amount that was paid to the second respondent was very meager, hence, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in entertaining the petition and passing the order. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶36

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:6464 WP No. 52792 of 2017

¶39

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has drawn 765 KV (double circuit line) transmission line back in the year 2016 and it has paid the compensation amount of Rs.18,87,503/- to the second respondent. Despite receiving the compensation amount, the second respondent filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner. This is unsustainable in law. The reason is apparent. If person has any grievance about the utilization of the land for laying of the transmission lines and the compensation amount, the appropriate remedy would be to file a petition under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Deputy Commissioner has overlooked this aspect of the matter and as erroneously entertained the Misc. Petition. I may venture to say that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded the relevant matters. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶40

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The proceedings passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B, the orders dated:06.08.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner vide

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:6464 WP No. 52792 of 2017

¶43

Annexures-F and G and the Memorandum dated:14.11.2017 issued by Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M are quashed.

¶44

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶45

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶46

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26

M/S. Kudgi Transmission Limited v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kudgi Transmission Limited v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thomas Jacob Vs Sri M Ramaiah

Smt Pushpalatha @ Ankitha Kavya Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Waquar Ali H M Vs Smt K v Bindu

Smt M Saraswathi G Poojary Ganesh Vs Chief Regional Manager

Sri Manjappa Gowda Vs Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka