Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Tarei vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 29 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11156 of 2025
Ratnakar Tarei ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Arun Kumar Behera
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Tpcodl Represented By Adv. -Ms.
3) The Executive Engineer, S.Nayak, A.S.C.
Electrical
4) The Sdo, Electrical Mr. L.K.Maharana,Adv. For
5) The Je, Electrical TPCODL
6) Sri Abinash Mishra
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
29.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
Mr.L.K.Moharana, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite
Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following
prayer :
"The petitioner, therefore, prays that your
Lordship's would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ
Petition, may be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI, in
the nature of any appropriate writ/writs and/or
direction/directions calling upon the Opp.Parties to;
a) Direct the Opp. No.2 to 6 to remove electric poles &
the power supply (Live line wear) over the home &
homestead land of the petitioner which severely affect
the petitioner & his family.
b) And direct the Opp.Party No.2 to 6 to find alternative
spaces as available for installation of power line to
the without affecting the home & homestead land of
the petitioner & for the safety of the family members."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
being aggrieved by the drawal of 11 KV electric line over the
residential house of the present Petitioner, the Petitioner has
approached this Court for grant of relief as has been prayed in the
present Writ Petition. He also contended that due to the drawal of the
11 KV electric line over the residential house of the Petitioner, the
lives of the family members of Petitioner are at stake.
5. Mr.L.K.Moharana, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties on
the other hand submitted that the overhead 11 KV line was pre-
existing and now the Distribution Company is changing the wires
under CapEx scheme. Therefore, no new construction or drawal of
electric line has been made. He further contended that such fact has
also been admitted in the Writ Petition by the Petitioner. In course of
his argument, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, further
referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of the
Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPCODL v. Smt.Soubhagini Patra
in W.P.(C) No.21035 of 2021 disposed of on 14.03.2023, contended
that the Division Bench has categorically held that the GRF is the
competent authority to decide the dispute of the present nature. The
Division Bench in Paragraph-36 of the said judgment has
categorically held that the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of
Police, if he is so authorized to, is the competent to exercise their
power and to grant necessary relief as has been sought for in the
present Writ Petition by the Petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for
the respective parties, further keeping in view the factual background
of the present case and taking into consideration the judgment of the
Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.21035 of 2021, the Writ Petition is
disposed of at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to file a detailed representation along with all supporting
documents before Opposite Party No.2 within a period of 10 days
from today. In such eventuality the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well
to consider and dispose of the application of the Petitioner within a
period of six weeks by providing opportunity to all concerned parties
and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Any decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereof.
7. In the event the Petitioner moves an application for passing
any interim order before the Opposite Party No.2 he shall consider
the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of eight weeks.
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ application
stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
