Nagaraju C.M. vs State of Karnataka and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the communication dated 15-6-2012 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, CHESCOM, K.R. Nagar Branch, K.R. Nagar, Mysore-respondent 5 herein. As per the said communication, petitioner is called upon to pay the shifting charges in a sum of Rs. 47,481/- towards the total estimated cost of 11 KV Paper Mill Feeder passing on Site No. 37 near Veerabhadreshwara Nagara, allegedly as per the request of the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of site bearing No. 37 situated at Veerabhadreshwara Nagara, Hunsur Road, K.R. Nagar in Mysore District. According to him, having purchased the site and after obtaining the approved sanction plan for construction of a house, he has put up a residential house in the property. It is his case that prior to the construction of the house, there was all KV KEB Feeder line which was passing on Site No. 66 which belonged to one Smt. Chandrakala. However, the authorities, particularly respondents 4 and 5 without following any scientific method, only to help the owner of the said site bearing No. 66, installed an intermediate pole and deviated the 11 KV line to pass through the petitioner''s property bearing Site No. 37 and also site bearing No. 67. This made the petitioner to submit a representation dated 4-4-2012 vide Annexure-L. In the said representation, petitioner has made it clear that 11 KV electricity line was not earlier passing through his property, but the authorities, in order to help some of the residents, deviated the line so as to pass it over the property belonging to the petitioner. He has pleaded hardship and difficulties that is caused to him on account of this deviation and had requested the authorities to correct their mistake by ensuring that the line is brought in conformity with the plan and map which had been duly approved earlier. This was followed by a legal notice issued by the petitioner through his Counsel on 26-6-2012, copy of which is produced at Annexure-M. The grievance of the petitioner is that, although the authorities were required to correct their mistake by changing the electricity line, they have issued the impugned communication - Annexure-H calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 47,481/- allegedly towards the charges for shifting the line.

Mr. N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents has filed statement of objections denying the assertions made by the petitioner, contending inter alia that the 11 KV Paper Mill Feeder line was drawn in the year 1980 itself and that the line had been charged long ago. He further points out that on the request made by the petitioner, the line is rerouted so as to avoid the property of the petitioner and therefore, it is the duty of the petitioner to pay the shifting charges.

Having regard to the assertion made in the statement of objections, this Court by order dated 26-8-2013 directed the Counsel appearing for respondent 5 to secure the file containing the representation submitted by the petitioner to know whether he had indeed made any allegation regarding the deviation of the line unauthorisedly by the officers and as to whether the line was being rerouted at his request in the ordinary course.

The papers are made available for perusal. The representation submitted by the petitioner on 4-4-2012 is found in the file. No other representation is available in the said file. It is seen from the representation dated 4-4-2012 given by the petitioner that he had made allegations against the authorities that they were illegally diverting 11 KV line so as to pass it over site bearing No. 37 belonging to the petitioner, whereas the earlier line was not passing through the property of the petitioner. In this regard only, he had sought for rerouting the line so as to bring it in conformity with the approved plan and map. Therefore, it cannot be, prima facie, said that at the request of the petitioner, the authorities have in order to avoid hardship and difficulty faced by the petitioner, had decided to reroute the line. Therefore, the demand made on that basis in a sum of Rs. 47,481/- without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his allegations made in the representation and without the Competent Authority passing a specific order in this order cannot be sustained. Principles of natural justice require that the petitioner has to be heard in the matter and the Competent Authority has to first record its finding as to whether 11 KV line as it stood earlier passed over the property of the petitioner and that only at the request of the petitioner and in order to avoid the difficulties and hardship faced by him and in order to help him, the line was rerouted. Only in the second such contingency, the authorities will be entitled to collect the shifting charges from the petitioner, otherwise they are not entitled to collect the shifting charges. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of. The Superintending Engineer, Elec., CHESCOM, Mysore, shall consider the representation of the petitioner submitted on 4-4-2012 and after hearing the petitioner and as also the authorities of the department, ascertain whether the 11 KV line as originally erected, in fact passed over the house/site of the petitioner and that it is being shifted at the request of the petitioner to avoid hardship to him. The Competent Authorities shall, thereafter, proceed to issue required communication to the petitioner, in accordance with law.