Superintendent Engineer (Elect.), Cuttack Vs Pradyumna Kumar Sethi

employees of the electricity distribution company have challenged the award dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cuttack in PLA Case No.33 of 2023/Annexure-4.

¶15

3. Factual scenario of the case as well as submissions made on behalf of both the parties in brevity remains:-

¶16

4. The Opposite Party No.1 is the recorded owner of the land measuring Ac.0.080 decs. appertaining to plot Nos.1052/2767 and 1054/2890, Khata No.415/1230 Kissam Homestead under Mouza-Subhadrapur in the district of Cuttack.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:51:43

¶19

5. Due to drawing of 11 KV service electric line over his above noted plot without his consent the Opposite Party No.1

¶20

Page 1 of 7

¶21

approached the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cuttack through PLA Case No.33 of 2023.

¶22

6. Upon hearing all the parties concerned, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cuttack vide award dated 13.03.2024 directed the Petitioners to shift the service line and electric pole from the land of the Opposite Party No.1 and redraw it in an alternative way within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order without even charging any expenses from the applicant.

¶23

7. The relevant portion of the award dated 13.03.2024 is extracted herein below:-

¶24

“As per Section-37 of the OERC (Conditions of Supply code), 2019, the shifting of service connection/ deviation of line and shifting of equipment by the consumer for the existing line is to be borne by the consumer himself and not by the licensee. Further it has been mentioned that no charges to be levied in case the line was previously drawn unauthorisedly over a plot which causes inconvenience on either to plot owner/owners or other consumers affected.

¶25

Admittedly in the instant case, the applicant is not a consumer but the owner of the land over which the service line has been previously drawn unauthorisedly without any consent causing inconvenience to him. Section 67 of the Electricity Act 2003 envisages that when electric poles or lines are being erected over a land of private persons having his right and title there in, the right and title is not shifted to the appropriate govt rather the right of user remains there and to that effect, the affected party is entitled for compensation.

¶26

In the instant case admittedly the applicant has not receive any compensation for the same and there is alternative route to redrew the service line. Hence, the applicant cannot be charged with the expenses for shifting of service line from his private land.”

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:51:43

¶29

8. C hallenging the above award learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the decision of the Division

¶30

Page 2 of 7

¶31

Bench of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPCODL, Bhubaneswar Electrical Division & Anr. Vrs. Smt. Soubhagini Patra, Bhubaneswar & Anr.¹ and

¶32

also the provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the dispute involved in this matter should be adjudicated by the District Magistrate. Hence, the award passed by the learned Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cuttack in PLA Case No.33 of 2023/Annexure-4 needs to be set aside.

¶33

9. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment vide The Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPCODL, Bhubaneswar Electrical Division & Anr. (supra) are extracted herein below:

¶34

“16. In para-12(a), which has been incorporated by way of amendment, it has been asserted as under:

¶35

“The electricity transformer of 100 KVA was installed in the said duplex housing complex and the opposite party No.1 had also taken electricity connection from the said feeder. Another 500 KVA transformer was also installed. Later on taking advantage of the opposite party No.1’s absence, both the transformers had been shifted to her land after 2010 without her knowledge or permission.”

¶36

Section-16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 lays down the powers of the District Magistrates for taking action in respect of the disputes as mentioned under Sections-10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶37

From a comparative study of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the order dated 20.07.2009, it is to be noted that Section-16 of the Indian Telegraph Act has been recalibrated by the State Government by exercise of its authority as provided by Section 161 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Clause-7 of the Order dated 20.02.2009, as referred above, reads as follows:

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:51:43

¶40

“7. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 1, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a Local Authority-

¶41

1 2023 (II) ILR-CUT.-27

¶42

Page 3 of 7

¶43

(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 1 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the electricity Authority shall be permitted to exercise them.

¶44

(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or having control over the property, does not give all facilities for this being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

¶45

(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 1, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, be determined by him.

¶46

(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the Electricity Authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under subsection (3), that amount and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it.

¶47

(5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the Electricity Authority, from the person who has received the same.”

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:51:43

¶50

Mr. Dash, learned counsel has also relied on a decision of this Court in Kulamani Kar vs. The Executive Engineer (Electrical), Kuakhia Electrical Division, Kuakhia, District- Jajpur & others [the common judgment dated 02.11.2022 delivered in W.P.(C) No.11264 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.14517 of 2022] whereby, it has been observed as follows:

¶51

“7. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14517 of 2022 has contended that the order of the GRF is without jurisdiction in as much as The Works of Licensee Rules, 2006 which came into force

¶52

Page 4 of 7

¶53

with effect from 18.04.2006 has specifically created the authority who can direct shifting of the line or in the event of any difficulty faced by the person over whose land or the property, the line is drawn up and attend to such issues. Mr. Dash, learned counsel has referred to Rule-3 of the said Rules, which reads as follows:

¶54

“3. Licensee to carry out works.- (1) A licensee may –

¶55

(a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land;

¶56

(b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of any overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support:

¶57

Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works:

¶58

Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorized may be ordered in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.

¶59

(2) When making an order under sub-rule(1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorized, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier.

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:51:43

¶62

(3) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorized officer under subrule(1) shall be subject to revision by the Appropriate Commission.

¶63

Page 5 of 7

¶64

(4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the powers conferred upon any licensee under section 164 of the Act.”

¶65

It is apparent from the said rule that, if at any time, the owner or any occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed, shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer so authorized may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.

¶66

Sub-Rule(2) also provides authority to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the other officers, who are authorized, to determine the amount of compensation or of annual rent or both, which should in their opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or the occupier.” [Emphasis added]”

¶67

9. In his opposition to the stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submits that since the Petitioners have drawn the 11KV service electricity line over the homestead land of the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 deserves to get compensation.

¶68

10. He further contends that in this case no compensation has been awarded to the Petitioner nor has the electricity line been shifted to any other place. Hence, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of the Canara Bank Versus G.S. Jayarama² , the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cuttack has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involved herein.

¶69

11. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA parties, looking to the factual scenario of the case and also the Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:51:43 pr ov ision under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, this Court is

¶70

2 (2022) 7 SCC 776

¶71

Page 6 of 7

¶72

of the view that instead of approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cuttack the Opposite Party No.1 ought to have approached the concerned District Magistrate for redressal of his grievance. Hence, this Court while setting aside the award dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cuttack in PLA Case No.33 of 2023/Annexure-4, directs the Opposite Party No.1 to approach the concerned District Magistrate for redressal of his grievance.

¶73

12. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶74

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶75

Ayaskanta

¶76

Signature Not Verified

¶77

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:51:43

¶78

Page 7 of 7

Superintendent Engineer (Elect.), Cuttack v. Pradyumna Kumar Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Superintendent Engineer (Elect.), Cuttack v. Pradyumna Kumar Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyasagar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha

Gita Mohapatra Vs Collector and Dm, Puri

Budhadev Patra Vs State of Odisha

Bhubana Mehera Vs State of Odisha

Nilamani Maharana Vs Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur