[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited vs District Commissioner on 19 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010269602025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/176/2025
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, NER BADARPUR GHAT
P.O.- BADARPUR GHAT, P.S.- PANCHGRAM, DIST- HAILAKANDI, PIN-
788806, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
NAMELY SHRI ANINDA DEBLASKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
VERSUS
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, HAILAKANDI AND ANR
P.O. AND P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
2:MD. ABDUL MALIK MAZUMDER
S/O (L) MASKANDAR ALI MAZUMDER
VILL- BORBOND PT-II
P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : N KHERA,
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
19.12.2025
1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted
by Ms. P. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Page No.# 2/4
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited, impugning the judgment and
order dated 04.01.2025, passed by the court of the learned
Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, in Misc(P.G.) Case No.
28/2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a total
compensation amount of Rs. 11,82,750/- (Rupees Eleven lakh,
eight-two thousand, seven hundred and fifty) along with an
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization to the respondent No. 2.
3. A query was posed by this court as to whether there is any
provision of appeal in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 under an
order/judgment passed by the learned District Judge under
Section 16 of the said Act.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the Act does not provide an appellate provision, hence a
revision is maintainable and accordingly, the present petition
has been filed by the petitioner.
5. A further query was posed that in absence of an appellate
provision whether a revision under Section 115 would lie or an
application under Article 227 is maintainable. The learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application
under Article 227 is maintainable and also prays for some time
to satisfy this court the query posed by it by producing
authorities on his behalf.
Page No.# 3/4
6. Also heard Mr. T.R. Gogoi, the learned Government Counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 1.
7. Issue notice to the respondent.
8. Since Mr. Gogoi has already appeared for the respondent
No. 1, no formal notice need to be issued to the said
respondent. However, as regards respondent No. 2, the
petitioner shall take steps for issuance of notice upon the said
respondent by speed post as well as by usual mode within
7(seven) days from the date of this order, returnable on 6 th
February, 2026.
9. Let the records of Misc. (P.G.) Case No. 28/2016 be called
for from the trial court.
10. The Registry to take steps for requisitioning the aforesaid
case.
11. Since the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that an execution case has already been filed by the
respondent No. 1 for execution of the impugned judgment and
award, some interim relief may be granted to the petitioner till
next returnable date.
12. The prayer is allowed.
13. The execution of the impugned judgment and award
shall remain stayed, till the next returnable date.
Page No.# 4/4
14. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
