IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.6113-6115 OF 2017 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
SRI. L. ANANDA SON OF M. LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.34, 8TH CROSS VINAYAKA NAGARA MYSURU -570 001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CESCOM,NO.29, 3RD FLOOR CAUVERY GRAMEENA BANK ROAD 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU - 570 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL) CESCOM,NO.29, 3RD FLOOR CAUVERY GRAMEENA BANK ROAD 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU - 570 017.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), CESCOM V.V. MOHALLA DIVISION V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), CESCOM HOOTAGAHALLI SUB-DIVISION HOOTAGAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 017. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. G. PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5/9/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP 38415-417 OF 2016 [GM-KEB]. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN WRIT PETITION NO.38415- 417/2016 [GM-KEB] BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2016 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IN REF.NO.EE(ELE) AEE (R) V.V.M/15-16/3459-60 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.01.2016, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRINCIPAL MANAGER MADE IN REF.NO.GM(T)EE(T)AEE(T)-04/2015-16/16265-67 AT ANNEXURE-B.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 38415 – 38417 of 2016 (GM-KEB), by which the petitions were disposed off with certain observations, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the report dated 06.01.2016 issued by 3rd respondent – the Executive Engineer (Electrical), CESCOM, Mysuru, in No.EE (Ele)/A.E.E.(R)/V.V.M/15-16/3459-60 and endorsement dated 21.01.2016 bearing reference No.GM(T)/EE(T)AEE(T)-4/2015-16/16265-67 issued by the 2nd respondent – The Principal Manager (Technical) CESCOM, Mysuru, and for a direction to the respondents to remove the electricity pole situated in Sy.No.205 of Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru, by considering application dated 25.08.2015 Annexure-D. The petitioner claims that he is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of house site bearing Sy.No.205, Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru. It is stated that the petitioner on 25.08.2015 made a representation to the 4th respondent – the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), CESCOM, Mysuru, requesting to remove the electric line passing through his house site bearing Sy.No.205 of Bogadi Village as it affects his right of enjoyment of the property. It is also stated that electric pole is installed in his site. The petitioner states that he made one more representation. The 4th respondent submitted report stating that the electric pole cannot be removed, accordingly the petitioner was issued with endorsement dated 21.01.2016. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the instant writ petitions. The learned Single Judge considering the rival contentions disposed off the writ petition relegating the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court. Hence the petitioner is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is wholly erroneous and failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is contended that the respondents have no authority to install electric pole on private property of the petitioner. He further submits that the endorsement issued by the respondents is wholly illegal, to remove the electric pole, no Court order would be required, hence prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the order of the learned Single Judge and submit that only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court under Electricity Supply Regulations and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents have installed electrical pole and drawn the electrical lines over his site which would prevent enjoyment of his site. Whether electrical pole and line have been erected in the site of the petitioner is a matter which requires enquiry. Further if the petitioner is able to establish that the electric pole is installed in his site, he would be entitled for compensation from the respondent - CESCOM. The alleged erection of electrical pole in his site and removal of the same could not be the subject matter of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court seeking appropriate compensation. We see no perversity or erroneousness in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge rightly relegated the petitioner to competent Civil Court. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms