On earlier occasion, Mr. Jain, learned advocate for the petitioners, argued the petition at length and upon conclusion of the arguments, time was granted to him to cite the authorities on which he placed reliance. It was also informed to the petitioners that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in certain appeals, the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. 2. Today, Mr. Jain, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that present petition may be disposed of in light of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 18.7.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.844 of 2012 and connected matters.
3. Mr. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the respondent, has submitted that the respondent company has already heard the petitioners and details have been informed and explained to the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent company has followed the procedure and adopted the best possible course with least effect on the petitioners.
Mr. Hasurkar also submitted that in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 18.7.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.844 of 2012 and connected matters, the respondent company is obliged to act in accordance with the directions passed by the Division Bench.
4. Since, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petition can be disposed of in light of the order dated 18.7.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.844 of 2012 and connected matters, the request is accepted.
5. The relevant observations in the order dated 18.7.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.844 of 2012 and connected matters, read thus:-
4. Challenge in the appeals filed by the Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Limited (hereinafter referred as “electricity company”) is in connection with the order of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge while referring the writ petitions to the Larger Bench has continued the order of status quo till the Larger Bench decides the issues referred by the learned Single Judge before the Larger Bench. So far as Letters Patent Appeal Nos.842 and 843 of 2012 are concerned, the same are preferred by the individual land owners on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erred in not granting the interim relief in their favour. The electricity company wanted to erect transmission towers and the same were required to be erected in the lands of the individual land owners. The land owners filed respective petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the action of the electricity company on the ground that without giving hearing to the concerned land owners and without fixing appropriate compensation, it is not open for the electricity company to install such transmission towers in the part of their lands as it may hamper agricultural activities. On behalf of the electricity company, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel Vs. Chief Engineer (Project), Gujarat Energy Transmission and others, reported in 2011 (2) GLH 781. Relying on the said judgment, it is argued by Mr.Hasurkar that the learned Single Judge was bound by the said judgment and even if the learned Single Judge ultimately decided to refer the issue to the Larger Bench, at least, there was no question of extending status quo as till the judgment of the Division Bench which is binding to the learned Single Judge is over-ruled in a given case by the Larger Bench, the law declared by the Division Bench is binding to the learned Single Judge and there was no question of granting any status quo order.
5. Learned advocates for both the sides have argued the matter on the question of granting or vacating the status quo at some length. However, during the course of hearing since consensus is prevailing between both the sides, it is not necessary to deal with the arguments in detail. In view of consensus prevailing between both the sides, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge by passing the following order.
6. The electricity company may approach the concerned Magistrate under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 in case the action proposed by the electricity company is resisted by the concerned land owners and if the concerned land owners are not cooperating in the matter of handing over the possession of the lands for the purpose of allowing the electricity company to erect transmission towers. If any appropriate application is preferred, concerned Magistrate, after hearing the objections, if any, of the land owners may decide the application immediately without undue delay after hearing the concerned persons in order to comply with the principles of natural justice and the electricity company may accordingly proceed further on the basis of the order that may be passed by the Magistrate in this behalf as per the provisions of the Electricity Act. In case, any party has any grievance in connection with the order passed by the Magistrate, it is open for such party to take further recourse against the said order in accordance with law. The order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly substituted by the aforesaid order. It is clarified that this order is passed only in connection with granting of interim relief and the order of the learned Single Judge is considered to the aforesaid extent of granting interim relief. This Court has not examined the aspect as to whether reference could have been made to the Larger Bench or not as that point has not been pressed into service by Mr.Hasurkar in these appeals. It is further clarified that we have not examined in detail the grievance made by Mr.Hasurkar regarding granting of status quo as ultimately this order is passed in view of consensus prevailing between both the sides. It is needless to say that the electricity company may now proceed further regarding taking further steps in respect of erection of electricity transmission towers, as stated above, by making appropriate application to the concerned Magistrate and to act on the basis of the order passed by the concerned Magistrate.
5.1 In view of the said observations and in light of the request made by learned advocate for the petitioners, present petition is disposed of in terms of the observations and dir4ections made by the Division Bench in para-6 of the order dated 18.7.2012 to the extent and so far as it is applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case.
It is clarified and directed that the respondent company shall follow the same course of action as is directed by the Division Bench in para-6 of the above referred order.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc