Rajeeb Sahoo Vs Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-May-2024 12:49:28

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C). NO.336 OF 2024

¶5

Rajeeb Sahoo …. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Braja Kishore Sahoo, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

TATA Power Central Odisha …. Opp. Party Distribution Limited (TPCODL), Bhubaneswar

¶9

Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate (For TPCODL)

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER

Order No.

02.05.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction for removal of low tension conductor drawn over the Plot No.612 under Khata No.859/4995 under mouza Kapaleswar in the district of Cuttack, which is recorded in the name of the Petitioner.

¶17

Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that when construction over the aforesaid plot was going on, the low conductor was drawn over the plot of the Petitioner. Inspite of protest, the authority under TPCODL did not pay any heed and proceeded with the illegal act and drawing the conductor. Finding no other alternative, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

¶18

Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for TPCODL, on instruction, submits that the conductor drawn over the plot of the Petitioner is not low tension conductor. It is high tension conductor and is existing since more than 30 years. It is not a fact that the high tension conductor was drawn in the midst of construction of the house over the suit property. The construction

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-May-2024 12:49:28

¶22

of the house has been made violating the provision of CEA Regulation, 2010. It is also submitted that no grievance whatsoever is made to the authority under TPCODL by the Petitioner for its redressal.

¶23

He further submits that in view of the ratio decided 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], the Petitioner has to approach the concerned District Magistrate for redressal of his grievances either for removal of the high tension line or for compensation. Thus, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶24

Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the disputed questions of fact with regard to drawl of the conductor and time of construction involved in this writ petition.

¶25

When the Petitioner at para 3 of the writ petition has stated that low tension line has been drawn over his residential plot, when the construction of the house was going on, Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the TPCODL submits that the high tension line over the plot of the Petitioner is existing for last 30 years i.e., much before the construction started.

¶26

8. Further in the case of The Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPCODL (supra), this Court held as under:

¶27

“ 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

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-May-2024 12:49:28

¶31

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.

¶32

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.”

¶33

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ petition as it involves disputed question of facts.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may move the concerned District Magistrate for redressal of his grievances.

¶35

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶36

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶37

Rojalin

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Rajeeb Sahoo v. Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeeb Sahoo v. Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd.

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

Anakar Naik Vs Union of India

Chhabita Martha Vs Sisira Kanta Swain

Kishore Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Brajarajnagar Truck Owners Association, Jharsuguda Vs the Collector, Jharsuguda

Budhei Naik Vs State of Odisha

Mamata Naik Vs Collector, Angul