Gauhati High Court
M/S Power Grid Corpn. India Ltd vs Abdul Sattar on 16 June, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010123262023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3425/2023
M/S POWER GRID CORPN. INDIA LTD.
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE,
HAVING ITS SUB-STATION AT SILCHAR IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI S.
RAMAMOHANA CHARY,
SON OF LATE S. RANGA CHARYA,
RESIDENT OF 132 KV POWERGRID SUB STATION,
BADARPUR GHAT, BADARPUR- 788803,
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
ABDUL SATTAR
SON OF LATE SAFAR ALI,
VILLAGE- JAMIRA, P.S. KATLICHERRA,
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
16.06.2023
Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred
Page No.# 2/3
challenging a judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in
Misc. Case no. 85/2006 whereby the learned District Judge, Hailakandi directed the opposite party
no. 1 therein i.e. the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 7,03,600/- towards compensation
to the petitioner therein i.e. the sole respondent herein.
It is submitted that the petitioner is a transmission utility and a licensee under the
Electricity Act, 2003. In the course of its business as such licensee, the petitioner undertook
construction of a transmission line of 132 KV power line from Badarpur, Assam to Bhairabi,
Mizoram over the Hailakandi district. The said project was undertaken in the year 1990s and the
sole respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 10,753/- towards surface damage compensation as per
the Government approved rate on 10.03.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that after elapse of
7 [seven] years, the sole respondent filed an application before the learned District Judge,
Hailakandi in 2006 under Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with
Section 42 and Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 claiming enhanced compensation raising a
dispute purportedly. Litigation ensued where the petitioner herein took a stand that the dispute
raised by the sole respondent before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi under Section 16[3] of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is barred by limitation. But, the issue of limitation has not been
considered by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi while deciding Misc. Case no. 85/2006 as
well as Misc.[P.G.] Case no. 85/2006 by the judgments, dated 03.12.2011 and dated 21.09.2022
respectively. The issue raised by the petitioner requires deliberation.
Issue notice, returnable in 4 [four] weeks.
The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the sole respondent by registered
post with A/D as well as by usual process within 2 [two] working days from today.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any dispute raised under
Section 16[3] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the jurisdictional District Judge, the period
of limitation provided by Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable and in such view of
the matter, the dispute raised by the sole respondent herein was clearly barred by limitation. It is
further submitted that as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the point of limitation can be
raised at any time.
Having considered the aspects urged on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the view
that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case. It is, therefore, provided that till
the returnable date, the operation of the judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed in Misc.[P.G.] Case
no. 85/2006 shall remained stayed.
Page No.# 3/3
List the case after 4 [four] weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
