Dola Gobinda Nayak Vs State of Odisha

01. 1. The petitioners claiming to be residents of BainchuaTangi in the district of Cuttack joined together to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation praying for intervention in the matter of installation of high voltage transmission line “by the side of village”.

¶14

2. It is submitted by Mr. Raj Kishore Swain, learned Advocate for the petitioners that the transmission line is proposed to be installed under the public utility project passing by the side of the village covering village pond and land etc . Perceiving danger to public safety and hazards in the event of installation of such high voltage transmission line passing through the area, it is submitted that the alignment of such lines is required to be modified.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

3. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government for the opposite parties submitted that the petitioners ought to have complied with Rule 8¹ of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 by submitting representation(s) to the appropriate competent authority.

¶17

4. Heard counsel for the both parties. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioners along with Sarpanch of Uchapada Gram Panchayat have approached the Collector, Cuttack by way of representation dated 06.04.2026 with advance copies to the Human Rights Commission, the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar and the Tata Power Paradeep Transmission Ltd. The averments contained in the writ petition transpires that the petitioners seek modification of proposed alignment of 765 KV transmission lines which would pass over the village land and pond etc . This Court has no technical expertise to render its opinion whether alignment would be conducive to achieve the purpose for which the transmission lines are to be drawn. No drawing or design is placed on record to demonstrate that such alignment would have any larger impact on the villagers as it is found from the averment that the transmission lines are proposed to be drawn at the close proximity of sensitive areas. From the copies of map enclosed with writ petition at Annexure-2 it is not clearly

¶18

1 Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Rules, 2010 reads thus:

¶19

“Before filing a PIL, the petitioner must send a representation to the authorities concerned for taking remedial action, akin to what is postulated in Section 80 CPC. Details of such representation and reply, if any, from the authority concerned along with copies thereof must be filed with the petition. However, in urgent cases where making of representation and waiting for response would cause irreparable injury or damage, petition can be filed straightway by giving prior notice of filing to the authorities concerned and/or their counsel, if any.”

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

discernible if such modification of alignment sought for by certain villagers is required.

¶22

6. If the villagers have genuine grievance, it is open for them to pursue the same before the authorities concerned. This Court is afraid to show indulgence in the matter as it is not expert to opine on technical aspect and it has no technical expertise to decide whether the alignment for installation of transmission line could be amended or modified. Technical bodies having expertise in power sector are being employed to determine the shortest, most efficient, and safest routes. On the contrary, simply at the behest of some villagers (if not all) who approached this Court if the writ petition is entertained, then interference would pose as a clog on the progress which may ultimately lead to massive cost overruns and delays in essential infrastructure. Since the petitioners have approached the authorities, this Court desists from entertaining this writ petition.

¶23

7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶24

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶25

(M.S. Raman)

¶26

Judge

¶27

Aswini Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT (SECY I/C) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2026 12:13:14

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Dola Gobinda Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dola Gobinda Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasobanta Das Vs Panchanan Nayak, O.A.S Tahasildar, Pattamundai

Rajesh Gouda, Prop- M/S Radha Krishna Traders Vs the Superintendent, Cgst and Central Excise, Koraput Range

Supriya Mishra Vs Additional State Tax Officer, Ct and GST Circle, Puri

Sumitra Sethy Vs the Indian Railways, New Delhi

M/S U-Tech Service Vs State of Odisha

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt.,Ltd. Vs State of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Dept.,Secretariat, Bbsr