Allahabad High Court
Sushila Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Chaudhary
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18972-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2084 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sushila Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puneet Chandra
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Shri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos.1, 4.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs :-
"I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned notice dated 03.02.2024 issued opposite party No.3 contained as Annexure No.1 in the interest of justice.
II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned prior approval granted by the State Government dated nil for installing overhead line over the land of the petitioner in favour of the opposite party no.2 and 3 in the interest of justice after summoning the original from the office of the opposite party no.1.
III. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to decide the objection/representation dated 24.02.2024 contained Annexure No.5 to the writ petition in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Electricity Department, without paying any compensation, is erecting the High Power Line over the petitioner's land.
4. After the aforesaid argument counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice will be sub-served if this Court may please to direct the District Magistrate concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court.
5. In support of his contention counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 21.3.2017 in the case of Writ-C No. 46247 of 2015 (Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) and added that the benefit granted in the aforesaid order may also be extended to him.
6. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 have no objection if the benefit of the order passed in Writ-C No. 46247 of 2015 (Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) is provided to the petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, the District Magistrate, Basti (respondent No.4) is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment and order passed on 21.3.2017 in Writ-C No. 46247 of 2015 (Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) along with the provisions of section 164 of Electricity Act read with section 10 of Telegraph Act within a period of 45 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
8. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
Order Date :- 1.3.2024
Shubhankar
