Calcutta High Court: In an intra-appeal against the dismissal of appellant’s writ petition seeking direction to place high voltage electricity cables through and above their land, on grounds of violation of Articles 30(1) and 30(1A) of the Constitution of India, a division bench comprising of T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ., and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J., upheld the order Single Bench’s order on not finding any grounds to interfere with the order of the Single Bench.
In the instant matter, the appellants, who are minority institution owners, filed a writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to place high voltage electricity cables through and above their land, contending it violated their constitutional rights under Articles 30(1) and 30(1A) of the Constitution of India. The Single Bench, vide order dated 25-09-2023, dismissed the writ petition, asserting that the appellants cannot confuse their rights under Article 30(1A) with the right of the Transmission Company to draw electricity lines over private or public properties. The Single Bench also noted the availability of remedies under the Telegraph Act and the option for the appellants to seek adequate compensation through the district court. The issue in hand is whether the direction sought by the appellants to place high voltage electricity cables through and above their land, on grounds of violation of Articles 30(1) and 30(1A) of the Constitution of India as a minority institution, warrants interference by the Court.
The Court deliberated on the arguments presented by the appellants but found no grounds to interfere with the order of the Single Bench. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court in Seth Mafatlal Charity Trust v. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online Guj 9445, stated that Courts should generally not interfere with decisions concerning the laying of lines or installations unless exceptional circumstances warrant. The Court deemed the appellants’ reliance on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha, (2007) 6 SCC 792, regarding compensation for trees, as irrelevant because the situation concerned had not yet arisen. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order of the Single Bench.
[St. Marys Techonological Foundation v. W.B. State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2758, order dated 19-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, Mr. Utpal Das, Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja, Mr. Sumit Roy, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
