Dismissed

Muralidhar Behera v. Ceo,Tpnodl, Balasore

Orissa HC22 Nov 2023WP(C)/27798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to shift an HT line. Citing a Division Bench order, the Court held the discretion lies with the District Magistrate/Collector. The petitioner was directed to approach them with documents within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to approach Collector and District Magistrate within two weeks with relevant documents.

Muralidhar Behera Vs Ceo,Tpnodl, Balasore — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 23-Nov-2023 10:28:01

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.27798 OF 2023 Muralidhar Behera ….

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Dwarika Prasad Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

CEO, TPNODL, Balasore and others …. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. Debendra Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

22.11.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to comply with the order dated 9^th January, 2023 passed in W.P.(C). No.16985 of 2022 (Annexure-1).

¶16

It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C). No.16985 of 2022 with a prayer to shift 33KV HT line from his land in Plot Nos.2730/2920 and 2730/3151 in Khata No.551/216 situated in Mouza Kusan Nagar under Bhadrak Tahasil in the district of Bahdrak. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 9^th January, 2023 with the following direction:

¶17

“6. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the factual dispute involved herein cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. However, the Executive Engineer, Electrical BSED, TPNODLOpposite Party No.3 is competent to take a decision on the same referring to the materials and documents available with him. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction if the parties to the writ petition appears before Opposite Party No.3 on 24 January, 2023 along with

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 23-Nov-2023 10:28:01

¶21

certified copy of this order, he shall do well to take a decision with regard to shifting of the HT line in question giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and result thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7.”

¶22

In the meantime, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPCODL vrs. Soubhagini Patra and others [W.P.(C). No.21035 of 2021 decided on 14^th March, 2023] has held as under:

¶23

“ 35. Having appreciated the rival contentions as advanced by the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the GRF did not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to shifting of the transformers in as much as by rules/practice directions as framed under Section-164 of the Indian Electricity Act, it has been clearly provided under [Rule-3 of the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006] that at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land from which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line has been fixed, shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the Officers so authorized may give order in writing directing any such works support, stay or struck to be removed or altered. This provision has been supplemented by the provisions of the order dated 20.02.2019, which are substantially pari materia to the provisions of Rule-3 of the Works of Licensee Rule, 2006.

¶24

36. Therefore, either the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, if he is so authorized to exercise such power is the authority which will deal with such dispute. As such, the order dated 07.04.2021, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is interfered with and set-aside as being issued without any jurisdiction. But the opposite party No. 1 is given liberty to approach the authority, I.e. the District Magistrate of the district where the opposite party No. 1's land is situated for removing the transformers which have been installed without her prior permission and for granting compensation, if any.”

¶25

In view of the above, the proper course of action for the Petitioner would be to approach the concerned Collector for redressal of his grievances.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 23-Nov-2023 10:28:01

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event, the Petitioner moves the Collector and District Magistrate, Bhadrak for redressal of his grievances within a period of two weeks hence along with relevant documents, the same shall be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months therefrom giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶30

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶31

application.

¶32

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶33

Rojalin

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Muralidhar Behera v. Ceo,Tpnodl, Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidhar Behera v. Ceo,Tpnodl, Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Charan Jena Vs Bhagyashree Sasmita Jena

Rasik Mohan Satpathy Vs Rabi N.Satpathy

Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs Harischandra Khuas

Surendra Ch.Tripathy Vs Naresh Chc.Tripathy

Kedareswar Samantara Vs Md,Cesco Ltd.

Minakumari Baral Vs State of Odisha