9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 879 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of High Court s order - Shifting of transmission towers - Held that - Trial Court had granted an injunction, which was vacated by the lower appellate Court and the petition filed against the order of the lower appellate Court was dismissed by the High Court on the premise that respondent No.1 had purchased the land only in December, 2005 and the building was constructed in July, 2006 knowing fully well that negotiations with the officers of appellant No.1 had failed. The learned Single Judge further observed that it would be against public interest to pass an order which may necessitate dismantling of the entire line of numerous towers erected by spending public money. Even after dismissal of the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and its failure to persuade the Court to sustain the order of injunction passed by the trial Court, respondent No.1 kept the suit pending and, at the same time, filed the second writ petition. This was a clear case of abuse of the process of the Court. It is a different thing that even in the second round, respondent No.1 could not persuade the learned Single Judge to entertain its prayer. The suit was withdrawn only after the writ appeal was entertained by the Division Bench of the High Court. This shows that respondent No.1 had availed parallel remedies and gave up its pursuit before the Civil Court only after the Division Bench of the High Court indicated its willingness to hear the writ appeal on merits. Court will not allow a party to pursue two remedies simultaneously. The proposition laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. 1976 (11) TMI 196 - Supreme Court Of India does not help the cause of respondent No.1. Instead, the same can be relied upon for holding that the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge who had non-suited respondent No.1 on the ground that it had not only availed parallel remedies but pursued the same till the writ appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was entertained. - explanation given for not incorporating full details of the scheme in the notifications should have been accepted by the High Court and there was no justification to direct re-routing of the transmission line on the specious ground of non-compliance of the two provisions. - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the transmission schemes framed under Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 2. Legality of objections raised by the Trust against the execution of the transmission scheme. 3. Maintainability of the second writ petition in light of the doctrine of res judicata. 4. Public interest versus private interest in the context of the transmission scheme. 5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Transmission Schemes: The Orissa State Electricity Board (the Board) framed about 50 transmission schemes under Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which were notified on 30.05.1991 and later modified on 30.01.1996. The notifications were published in the official gazette, inviting representations from interested persons. The schemes were executed without any objections from licensees or other interested persons. The Supreme Court held that the notifications were issued in accordance with Section 29 of the Act, and the approval of the Central Government was not necessary as the cost of the scheme was less than Rs. 100 crores. The Court emphasized that the landowner(s) had neither made any representation nor filed objections within the statutory period. 2. Legality of Objections by the Trust: The Trust, which purchased land in 2005, raised objections against the execution of the scheme in 2006, claiming that the transmission towers would cross its building. The trial court initially granted an injunction, but the appellate court vacated it, noting that public interest would be compromised if the towers were not erected. The Supreme Court noted that the Trust had stepped into the shoes of a person who had no grievance against the scheme and could not challenge the same after substantial execution. The Court found that the Trust's objections were not legally tenable as they were raised after the statutory period and the scheme had already been substantially executed. 3. Maintainability of the Second Writ Petition: The Trust filed a second writ petition after the first one was dismissed. The High Court's Division Bench allowed the second writ petition, but the Supreme Court held that the second writ petition was barred by res judicata. The Court observed that the reliefs claimed in both writ petitions were substantially similar and that the Trust had abused the process of the Court by pursuing parallel remedies. The Supreme Court emphasized that the learned Single Judge had rightly refused to entertain the second writ petition, and the Division Bench committed an error by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. Public Interest versus Private Interest: The Supreme Court emphasized that the scheme involved public interest, which outweighed the private interest of the Trust. The Court noted that the transmission line was crucial for power supply to several districts, and shifting the transmission towers would not be in public interest. The Court also highlighted that the Trust had constructed buildings knowing fully well about the existing scheme and could not seek re-alignment of the route. The Court reiterated that larger public interest should not be compromised for the private interest of a few individuals. 5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and found that the Board had complied with the procedural requirements. The notifications contained a clear stipulation that full details of the scheme could be seen in the office of the Chief Engineer. The Court rejected the argument that the scheme was not in consonance with the Act, noting that the explanation given for not incorporating full details in the notifications was satisfactory. The Court held that there was no justification for directing re-routing of the transmission line on the ground of non-compliance with procedural requirements. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the second writ petition filed by the Trust. The Court ordered the Trust to pay a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs to the appellant for frustrating the implementation of the scheme through unwarranted litigation. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures, respecting public interest, and avoiding abuse of judicial processes.
|
