Keshab Charan Parida vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 605 Ori

Orissa High Court

Keshab Charan Parida vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 14 May, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          WP(C) No.36203 of 2022
     Keshab Charan Parida            .....       Petitioner
                                                        Represented By Adv. -

                                                        Mr. Rama Krishna Bisoi

                                     -versus-
     State of Odisha and others                 .....             Opposite Parties
                                                        Represented By Adv. -

                                                        Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC

                                                        M/s.Sagar Ranjan Panigrahi,
                                                        D.Dhall

                                                        (For O.P. Nos.2 and 3)

                           CORAM:
      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                   ORDER

14.05.2025 Order No.

03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, he is permitted to add the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Khurda as Opposite Party No.4 to the writ petition.

Let a corrected copy of the cause title of the writ petition be filed by tomorrow.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Distribution Company. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above, it i s ardently prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order under Annnexure-8 and direct the Opp. Party No.2 and 3 to shift the 11 KV HT pole and transformer to a distance of 3 meters from the residential house of the petitioner within a time stipulation as fixed by this And/or issue any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction /directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case."

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner is a recorded owner of Plot No.1138/2294/6109 bearing Khata No.1133/2424 of Mouza-Jagamara, P.S.-Khandagiri, Tahsil-Bhubaneswar, measuring an area of Ac.0.037 decimals. He further contended that the Petitioner has constructed a residential house over the aforesaid plot and residing therein with his family members since last 15 years. He further contended that his immediate neighbour Sri Golaka Bihari Sahoo, who is also residing in the locality, is the absolute owner of the Plot No.1695/2342 bearing Khata No.133/4059 of Mouza-Jagamara. In support of the contention of the ownership of the land, the Petitioner has also filed copies of the ROR as well as the holding tax deposit receipts and rent receipts under Annexue-3 and 4 Series respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended

that in the residential area of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 have installed an electric poll as well as a transformer. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that such installation is too close to his residential premises. He further submitted that after construction of first floor of his residential house, the Petitioner has approached the concerned Opposite Parties several times for shifting of the transformer and 11 K.V. electric pole to a safe distance from his residential house.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further submitted that while installing the pole and transformer, the Opposite Parties have not followed the Rule-80 of the Electricity Rules, 2005. Since there exist a threat to the life of the Petitioner as well as his family members due to installation of the electricity pole as well as the transformer closed to the residential house of the Petitioner, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 by filing a representation on 19.04.2022 and 02.07.2022 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition. However, the Opposite Party No.3 vide letter No.943 dated 02.04.2024 has informed the Petitioner that shifting of 11 K.V. line as well as the transformer from the plot of the Petitioner and to give a safe clearance and an estimate has been prepared for making necessary arrangement for such shifting. Such letter further reveals that only after getting consent from the Petitioner and on deposit of the estimated cost as well as the supervision charges,

necessary follow up steps shall be taken by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 under Annexure-8, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in The Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPCODL, Bhubaneswar Electrical Division, Bhubaneswar Vs. Smt. Soubhagini Patra (W.P.(C) No.21035 of 2021 disposed of vide judgment dated 14.03.2023. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while taking note of the provisions contained in Rule-3 of the Works of Licensee Rule, 2006, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Petitioner to approach the District Magistrate to decide the dispute in question. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner emphatically argued that under Rule-3 of the Works of Licensee Rule, 2006, the Collector-cum- District Magistrate is the competent authority to take a decision on the dispute which is involved in the present writ petition.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party- Distribution Company, on the other hand, contended that the Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order under Annexure-8 to the

writ petition. He further contended that the prayer of the Petitioner for shifting of the electric pole and the transformer has not been rejected, rather the Opposite Party No.3 has sought for the consent of the Petitioner for such shifting and has also requested the Petitioner to deposit 100% of the estimated cost along with for such shifting. In such view of the matter, learned counsels for the Distribution Company submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality. Accordingly, the present writ petition is devoid of merit.

10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, this Court observes that the only issue in the present writ petition is with regard to shifting of the electric pole as well as the transformer. The pertaining question that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the Opposite Party No.3 is competent to take such decision or the District Magistrate is vested with power under the Works of Licensee Rule, 2006 to resolve the dispute. In the aforesaid context, this Court examined the judgment of this Court rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Smt. Soubhagini Patra's case (supra). On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case and that the Petitioner is required to approach the Collector-cum-

District Magistrate under Rule-3 of the Works of Licensee Rule, 2006 for redressal of his grievance.

11. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.4-Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Khurda by filing an application within four weeks from today ventilating his grievance. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to redress the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken on such application be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

12. In terms of the aforesaid observation and liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis