JUDGMENT V. Jagannathan, J.—Shifting of 500 KV transformer from the second respondent's place to the first respondent's place by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (appellant herein) has given rise to this lis. The first respondent aggrieved by the shifting of the transformer to his place, approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 22906 of 2001 ( S. Jogindar Singh Sabarwal Vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (KPTCL) and Others, AIR 2004 Kant 141 ) and succeeded in getting a direction from this Court to the appellant herein to shift the transformer to its original place. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has come up before us for relief. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving raise to this appeal are that the first respondent is the owner of premises bearing Nos. 19 and 20, H. Siddaiah Road, opposite to Urvashi Theatre, Bangalore, and with the establishment of a hotel with a commercial complex in the said premises, the first respondent sought power connection from the appellant and the said request was complied by according sanction to install 40 KV with 10 HP transformer in the premises of the first respondent. One of the requirements for the installation of the transformer is that space measuring 20' x 15' has to be provided with easy access from the main road. On such space being made available, the appellant erected the transformer and power supply was also given by the end of January 1999. 3. The trouble started, when, within a month of the installation as aforesaid, the officials of the appellant replaced the transformer by installing a bigger transformer with the capacity of 500 KV in the same place and this made the first respondent to make a request to the appellant to shift the 500 KV transformer, mainly on the ground that the first respondent was facing considerable difficulties and disruption of power supply and also the children playing in the vicinity were exposed to risk and danger. It is the stand of the first respondent that the action of the appellant in installing a bigger transformer of 500 KV was motivated by mala fide intention inasmuch as the appellant wanted to favour the 2nd respondent-Urvashi Theatre and therefore, the appellant removed the transformer from Urvashi Theatre and put it in the premises of the first respondent. 4. It is the stand of the first respondent that the action of the appellant in installing a bigger transformer of 500 KV was motivated by mala fide intention inasmuch as the appellant wanted to favour the 2nd respondent-Urvashi Theatre and therefore, the appellant removed the transformer from Urvashi Theatre and put it in the premises of the first respondent. 4. Aggrieved by the said action on the part of the appellant, the first respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 22906 of 2001 before this Court praying for a direction to the appellant to remove the 500 KV transformer from his premises and replace in the original 40 KV transformer. 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the averments made in the writ petition and taking note of the objections filed by the appellant herein came to the conclusion that the action on the part of the appellant was not sustainable in law inasmuch as the appellant had misused the power vested in it in order to favour the second respondent-Urvashi Theatre and the entire manner in which the appellant put up the transformer in question without giving notice to the first respondent smacks of the power not being exercised in a bona fide manner and therefore, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant herein to remove the transformer in question and put it back in its original place and restore the transformer which was originally installed in the premises of the first respondent. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel Sri Naganand appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant has got the power to shift the transformer from one place to another place, keeping in view the interest of the public. Since the transformer which was installed at Urvashi Theatre was found to have caused great inconvenience to the cine goers and in view of the large number of persons going to the theatre and as it was also felt that there is likelihood of danger being caused to the public who visit the theatre, the appellant-authorities thought it fit to shift the transformer to the first respondent's premises. Moreover, as the first respondent himself has requested the appellant to install the transformer, sanction for the same has been given by the second respondent, it will not lie in the mouth of the first respondent to contend that the installation of the transformer of a bigger kilowatt would cause danger to the first respondent. It was further contend by the learned Counsel that having regard to the sketch produced as per Annexure-R1, it cannot be said that the installation of the transformer in question in the premises of the first respondent would cause any inconvenience, because, the sketch would indicate that there is a passage between the first respondent's business complex and the place where the transformer is located. Moreover, there is also a vacant land adjacent to the passage and the transformer is installed close to the road which has a dead end at one end and the other end, opens into H.S. Siddaiah Road. Considering this fact, no fault can be found with the appellant in shifting the transformer from Urvashi Theatre. 8. It was also contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Regulations of the appellant-Corporation provides for the Board reserving its rights to extend supply of power to other applicants from the same distribution system. Inviting our attention to several provisions of the Regulations, it was submitted that the appellant-Corporation has every right to install the transformer keeping in view the public interest and the action of the appellant cannot be termed as one flowing from mala fide intentions. One other contention put forward by the learned Counsel Sri Naganand is that there is a considerable delay on the part of the first respondent in approaching this Court. Hence, it was submitted that it is within the jurisdiction of the appellant-authority to decide as to where to install the transformer and as this is more of a technical nature, the scope of judicial review is very limited and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition in matters of technical nature. 9. Hence, it was submitted that it is within the jurisdiction of the appellant-authority to decide as to where to install the transformer and as this is more of a technical nature, the scope of judicial review is very limited and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition in matters of technical nature. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel Sri Puttige R. Ramesh contended that the action of the appellant in shifting the transformer from Urvashi Theatre to the first respondent's premises is one falling within the scope of legal mala fide and this fact is borne on record inasmuch as the transformer was shifted from Urvashi Theatre due to the pressure brought by the said theatre on the Governmental authorities. Therefore, within one month of installing the transformer as sought by the first respondent, the appellant suddenly became very active and removed the said transformer and replaced it with the transformer which was shifted from Urvashi Theatre and all these were done during the period when the first respondent was away from the country attending his son at London. Moreover, is the shifting of the transformer from Urvashi Theatre was motivated due to the factors like inconvenience and danger to the public, the same factors will also apply to the place where it is now shifted. Considering the fact that the premises of the first respondent is smaller one compared to the area of Urvashi Theatre, there is no logic behind the stand of the appellant that the shifting was done with a bona fide purpose. In support of all these submissions, learned Counsel placed reliance on certain observations made by the learned author H.W.R. Wade in his Legal Classic 'Administrative Law'. Therefore, it was contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that there was misuse of power by the appellant and hence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Having regard to the contentions urged before us, the only point for consideration is, whether the action on the part of the appellant in shifting the transformer in question from the premises of the second respondent-Theatre to that of the first respondent in bona fide exercise of the power? 11. 10. Having regard to the contentions urged before us, the only point for consideration is, whether the action on the part of the appellant in shifting the transformer in question from the premises of the second respondent-Theatre to that of the first respondent in bona fide exercise of the power? 11. It is the specific case of the first respondent herein that the appellant in order to favour the second respondent-Theatre shifted the transformer in question to the premises of the first respondent. How far this stand of the first respondent is justifiable has to be determined in the light of the undisputed facts placed before us. These facts are that the first respondent sought power supply to an extent of 63 KV from the KPTCL and that the same was sanctioned by the appellants on 12-11-1998 and thereafter, the first respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 2,17,855/-. Though the said amount was in excess and then the appellant installed a transformer of 40 KV + 10 HP. The appellant removed the transformer which was in the premises of Urvashi Theatre for many years and installed it in the premises of the first respondent by removing the earlier one and that the transformer that was installed subsequently was of the capacity of 500 KV is also not in dispute. 'The reason given by the appellant-KPTCL for the shifting of the transformer from second respondent-theatre was in order to prevent danger to the public who visit the theatre, a fact in regard to which there can be no two opinions. At the same time, installation of the transformer of 500 KV in the premises of the first respondent will equally expose the persons who move about near the first respondent-premises to danger. A thing which is likely to cause danger to one person by its very nature, obviously will also cause danger to another person. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the transformer was shifted from Urvashi Theatre, because, it was likely to cause danger to the public who visit the theatre cannot be accepted as having any merit because of the above reasoning. 12. The second thing to be noticed is that when compared to the premises of the first respondent, the premises of the second respondent-theatre is a bigger one and this fact is also borne on record. 12. The second thing to be noticed is that when compared to the premises of the first respondent, the premises of the second respondent-theatre is a bigger one and this fact is also borne on record. To be more specific, the total area of the first respondent's place is 95' x 75'. Whereas, that of the second respondent-theatre is spread over in an area of 11/2 acres. Obviously, shifting a big transformer of 500 KV to a place which is smaller in area when compared to the original place which was much much bigger does not appeal to any one as having any rational basis. 13. The submission of the learned Counsel for the first respondent that what motivated the appellant to shift the transformer in question was extraneous consideration also cannot be dismissed as having no force because soon after shifting the transformer from the premises of the second respondent-theatre, the place that had become vacant is now occupied by a restaurant, which fact is also not in dispute between the parties and the photograph placed at Annexure-G to the writ petition is in consonance with the said submission of the learned Counsel for the first respondent. Yet another reasoning advanced by the first respondent's Counsel that certain factors influenced the appellant to favour the second respondent-theatre, is that pressure was brought by the second respondent with the powers that be to see to it that the transformer which was in existence for long time in Urvashi Theatre is shifted at the earliest. The second respondent-Urvashi Theatre wrote to the Executive Engineer South Division, KEB, Bangalore, putting it in black and white in letter dated 19-9-1999 (Annextire-R2) that the matter regarding shifting of 500 KV transformer was also persuaded by Hon'ble Chief Minister's Secretariat. If any doubt lingers in ones mind as to whether such a development could have taken place in the matter of shifting of transformer, any trace of such doubt disappears in the light of the Chief Engineer, Electricity, Bangalore Zone by his letter dated 3-9-1996 to the Executive Engineer, Electrical, KEB, South Division, Bangalore, once again putting it in black and white that the subject pertaining to shifting of transformer from Urvashi Theatre was also backed up by the persuasion made by Sri Siddaiah, Joint Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. This letter is produced at Ex. R. 1. 14. This letter is produced at Ex. R. 1. 14. Thus, the argument of the learned Counsel for the first respondent that some extraneous considerations made the appellant-KPTCL, to shift the transformer from Urvashi Theatre, is therefore, not without any substance and the fact that the above two documents Exs. R. 1 and R. 2 were produced by the appellant itself, further confirms that shifting of the transformer from Urvashi Theatre to the premises of the first respondent was not solely on account of any public interest involved. 15. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the scope of judicial review in technical matters should be very very narrow and that it is not for the Court to decide which is a better location to install the transformer and that there was no requirement on the part of the appellant to give notice about the installation of the transformer in the premises of the first respondent, does not, in our view, state the position in law correctly. But on the other hand, the State and its instrumentalities are also bound to follow the constitutional mandate of Article 14 and even though the scope of judicial review is very much limited, yet, when the action of the State is unreasonable or arbitrary, such an action of the State or instrumentality comes within the purview of judicial review and the said action will have to be decided on the touch tone of Article 14. 16. For the above said view of ours, we draw support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1991 SC 537 and ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, JT (2003) 10 SC 300 . The Apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case has laid down the law thus: "36. The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely stated or defined. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is trite that 'be you every so high, the laws are above you'. This is what men in power must remember, always". 17. Examined in the light of the above proposition of law and the undisputed facts placed before us, in the instant case, the inference that the action on the part of the appellant-KPTCL in shifting the transformer from the second respondent's place cannot be termed as one done with the bona fide intention. But on the other hand, the materials placed before us to give room to take the view that extraneous consideration weighed with the appellant in shifting the transformer to the premises of the first respondent within a month of a transformer of lesser capacity being installed in the premises of the first respondent and all these events took place in the absence of the first respondent who was away at London to see his ailing son and inspite of complaint given by the first respondent to the Commissioner of Police, therefore leaves no scope for taking any conclusion other than the one which has been arrived by us as mentioned above. 18. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to the decision in English law as has been pointed out by learned Counsel Sri Puttige Ramesh for the first respondent from the Legal Classic of H.W.R. Wade "Administrative Law" (7th Edition). 18. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to the decision in English law as has been pointed out by learned Counsel Sri Puttige Ramesh for the first respondent from the Legal Classic of H.W.R. Wade "Administrative Law" (7th Edition). The learned author has observed thus at page 433: "Powers of compulsory purchase, like other powers, must be exercised reasonably, and all the more so because they expropriate an owner against his will. An order may be quashed as unreasonable if the authority making it already possesses, or can acquire by agreement, other land which is equally suitable for its purposes". And at page 436 it is observed thus: "Sometimes an act may serve two or more purposes, some authorised and some not, and it may be a question whether the public authority may kill two birds with one stone. The general rule is that its action will be lawful provided that the permitted purpose is the true and dominant purpose behind the act, even though some secondary or incidental advantage may be gained for some purpose which is outside the authority's powers. There is a clear distinction between this situation and its opposite, where the permitted purpose is a mere pretext and a dominant purpose is ultra vires". 19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the action on the part of the appellant was not done in the exercise of power conferred on it with the bona fide intention, but on the other hand, the action smacks of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is irrational and is an instance of abuse and misuse of official position. We therefore, see no good reason to disagree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, our answer to the question raised for consideration is in the negative. 20. In the result, we pass the following order: (a) The writ appeal is dismissed; (b) The appellants are/directed to restore the transformer of the capacity which has been earlier installed in the premises of the first respondent within two weeks from the date of this order; (c) Parties to bear their respective costs.