High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashfaq Ahmad v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Others - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 47117 of 2007  RD-AH 16101 (28 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 47117 OF 2007
Ashfaq Ahmad, Son of Mohd. Akhtar,
r/o Jamalpur Mohammadabad Gohna,
1. U.P. Power Corporation Limited, 14 Ahok Marg,
Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow, through its Chairman.
2 Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Varanasi,
through its Manager.
3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division IInd, Mau.
4. District Magistrate, Mau.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.K. Narayana
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. H.P. Dube
M.C. Chaturvedi (S.C.)
Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Date : September 28, 2007
Oral Judgement (Per : H.L. Gokhale, C.J.)
1. Heard Mr. B.K. Narayana in support of this petition, Mr. H.P. Dube appearing for respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, standing counsel, who appears for the District Magistrate,respondent no.4.
2. The petitioner is one of the residents of a colony in an area known as Jamalpur in township Mohammadabad Gohna in district Mau. The petitioner along with so many residents of that area were anxious that the overhead high tension power line going above the colony where the petitioners are residing, should be shifted. For that purpose there has been correspondence with the respondent-authorities from 17th February 2005. They have deposited an amount of Rs.1,14,759/- with the authorities of the Electricity Board as demanded by the respondents. The petitioners made representation for shifting of the aforesaid power line, but the power line has not been shifted so far. The representation was followed by reminders to the Collector on 22nd March 2006 and letter dated 5th July 2006.
3. The present petition is filed in public interest in view of inaction on the part of respondents. Mr. Dube, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1, 2 and 3, submits that any time when high tension wire is laid a survey is done and area is selected, only then the lines are laid. The petitioner must give a viable alternative if they want to shift the existing line. He further submits that the amount deposited appears to be only for the purpose for shifting of transformer and not for overhead power line.
4. Mr. Narayana, appearing for the petitioner, states that the petitioner will provide viable alternative, submit a proposal in writing and if necessary will deposit additional amount.
5. In the event the petitioner complies with these requisitions the respondents are certainly expected to look into the representation and try to see that the anxiety of the petitioner is attended to, provided of course viable alternative is given and requisite amount is deposited.
5. The writ petition is disposed of.
Date : 28.9.2007.
(Anjani Kumar, J.)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.