Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging alignment of a 132 KV High Voltage Line. Single Judge dismissed petition alleging mutuality of remedy as civil suit was pending. Apex Court found no illegality in the single judge order and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1074 OF 2012
DATED:31.8.2012
Between: D. Ravikumar … Appellant And The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited Tirupathi Rep. by its Superintending Engineer Tirupati and another … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1074 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.14.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.25075 of 2012.
The appellant – writ petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to judiciously study the alignment of 132 KV High Voltage Line with reference to government poramboke land on North, and road poramboke land on South of the land Sy.No.4 of Pillarikuppam Village S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, before laying 132 KV High Voltage Line, through the said land.
The Hon’ble Single Judge considered the matter and observed that the petitioner stated in his affidavit that his wife has filed a suit in the matter for perpetual injunction and that the same is pending. His Lordship therefore held that when a remedy has already been availed by a person, no other than the petitioner’s wife in respect of the same property, the petitioner cannot be permitted to avail another remedy by way of present writ petition. His Lordship accordingly dismissed the writ petition further observing that there is no rationale in filing the writ petition by the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, present appeal is filed by the appellant – writ petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal strenuously urged that alternative land is available in the area and the respondents can take steps in the matter to find out other suitable land for drawing
up the line for alignment of proposed 132 KV High Voltage Line at the area in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the proposed alignment of 132 KV High Voltage line by the respondents would divide the land of the petitioner.
Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation contended that after making survey in the matter with regard to suitability and technical feasibility in respect of 132 KV High Voltage Line, the respondents proposed the present alignment, and that if a change is made to the said proposed alignment, a number of other alignments in respect of the said electrical line have to be changed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. We find no merit in this appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 31.8.2012
bnr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of mutuality of remedy when a civil suit for perpetual injunction is pending.
Whether interference with the impugned single judge order is warranted given the availability of alternative land and technical feasibility constraints.
D. Ravikumar
The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
