Eaklavya Vidhayalaya Kaprada Through Vestabhai Tuljibhai Jadav vs State Of Gujarat

A.Y. Kogje, J

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner-school and the representation made to the respondent-Electricity Company for the purpose of installing new proposed lines which are installed and are running from the premises of the petitioner-school from the northern corner of the school premises.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a non-granted school for the benefit of tribal students and is doing social work.

It is submitted that in future, for the purpose of expanding the school building, the electric lines, which according to the petitioner are passing from the school premises and very much from the school building, will not only affect the future development but is also affecting safety and security of the children. For the purpose, learned Advocate for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to two photographs to indicate the direction in which the electric lines are passing. From such photographs, it is also submitted to indicate that alternate route is available for running the high tension electric line so that such high tension lines do not pass through the premises of the petitioner-school.

2.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and submitted that when the occupier of premises raises an objection in respect of the works to be carried out under this Rule, the licencee will have to obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorised by the State Government before carrying out such works. It is submitted that in the present case, there is no such permission sought by the Electricity Company and therefore, the action is not in accordance with the requirements of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

Learned Advocate for the respondent-Electricity Company opposed the petition and submitted that under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision of the respondent, the petitioner has alternative remedy. Moreover, learned Advocate drew attention of this Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Electricity Company to indicate that the electric pole is not located in the school premises and that the electric lines are running in accordance with law and in fact, there is nothing to suggest that the electric lines are passing over the school building or even from over the land of the petitioner-school.

Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused documents on record. From the diagrams which are produced on record by the petitioner himself, it is amply clear that there is no location of high tension pole located within the petitioner-school premises nor there appears to be passing of high tension line through the premises of the petitioner-school. Moreover, the Court is satisfied with the statement made on affidavit, which reads as under:-

"7. The petitioner is having N.R.G.P. connection since 1.3.2016. There is another consumer nearby in the name of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya is having G.L.P. Connection since 21.7.2015. The said school wanted to construct another building for school and therefore, applied for shifting of 3 Feeder H.T.Lines. The respondent herein issued estimate for Rs.3,62,140/- to the said consumer viz. Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya which was paid by it. Pursuant thereto, the work for shifting of line was started. In between both the schools there is public road and after that road poles were required to be erected. The line which is to be shifted is not going to be erected in the premises or land of the petitioner school. Therefore the question of taking permission or consent from petitioner does not arise. Since the line is not to be erected from the premises of the petitioner, all alleged apprehensions mentioned in the petition about so called danger to the children are baseless.

I say and submit that petitioner objected to the shifting of the line. Thereupon the respondent issued estimate for Rs.59,079/- to the petitioner so that the line can be shifted so as not to cause any obstruction or inconvenience to the petitioner though as per the original layout the line was not to be laid in the premises of the petitioner. However the petitioner has chosen not to deposit the amount of the said estimate and kept obstructing the work of the respondent of shifting of line. I say and submit that petitioner has intentionally made incorrect averment on oath in the petition in Para-10 that for shifting of the line the petitioner will have to bear the expenses of lakhs of rupees whereas the petitioner is very much aware that the respondent had issued estimate for Rs.59,079/-to the petitioner for the said shifting. Therefore on this ground only petition deserves to be dismissed.

I say and submit that the proposed shifting of line is not to be done or passed through the premises of the petitioner. The poles are to be erected outside the premises of the petitioner school on the side of the road between both the schools."

In the opinion of the Court, in view of what is stated on affidavit, apprehension of the petitioner-school is unfounded. However, to agitate the issue of relocation of lines of the neighbouring school and apprehension of such line passing from the petitioner-school premises, for the purpose of ascertaining such factual aspect, it would be open for the petitioner-school to resort to the alternative remedy as provided under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The Court sees no reason to entertain this petition. The petition deserve to be and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.