Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners are said 10 be residents of Madangiri village in Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. They are agriculturists who are residing there. They own lands bearing Sy.Nos.178, 179 and 180, apart from other lands. Respondents 1 and 2 are the Electricity Supply Company, whereas Respondents 3 and 4 are the Railways. It transpires that the Konkan Railway has acquired lands surrounding the lands belonging to the petitioners and the petitioners also have their residential houses in the very lands. They have electricity pumpsets drawing water for agricultural purposes. The electricity supply to the railway quarters are provided by Respondents 1 and 2 for the employees of the Konkan Railway. The petitioners have furnished a sketch map showing the situation of the railway quarters and the lands of the petitioners. In order to draw power supply to the petitioners' lands, it is necessary to extend the power supply that is already provided to the Railway Quarters and would require the lines to be drawn over the railway land to reach the place of the petitioners by the shortest route and it is in this regard that the petitioners have been constantly petitioning the Railways, in order to provide power supply. The Railways having refused any such facility, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The petition is opposed by the Railways and it is vehemently contended that there are alternative options available to the petitioner to draw a power supply elsewhere and it would not be possible for the Railways to provide this facility. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Supply Company would however submit that this is the only option available to the petitioners and unless power lines are drawn from other areas, it would not be economically viable to provide a dedicated electricity supply line to the petitioners at all. It is in this background that Respondents 3 and 4 were called upon to state as to what would be the expenditure involved and what would be the terms on which such a facility could be provided to the petitioners. With some reluctance, the learned counsel has now produced certain policy guidelines adopted by the Railways in providing such facilities. It is in this background that Respondents 3 and 4 were called upon to state as to what would be the expenditure involved and what would be the terms on which such a facility could be provided to the petitioners. With some reluctance, the learned counsel has now produced certain policy guidelines adopted by the Railways in providing such facilities. The relevant portion of the said guidelines providing the rate at which such an easement could be provided is indicated in Tabular column thus: "6. The following rates may be levied for way leave facilities/easement rights on railway land:- (“TABLE”) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Railways that according to the above, the petitioners would have to pay the rate as indicated at 6 II (d) which would require the petitioners to pay 6% of the market value of the land subject to a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- per annum. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the rates applicable would be as per 6 1(c) and not 6 11(d). Therefore, the controversy is as to which of the rates would be applicable. Since the Tabular column pertains to rates prescribed for providing easementary rights on the railway land particularly with reference to power lines, and since 6 1(c) speaks of electric lines crossing for individual houses or shops, both underground and overhead, it is the apt item which would be applicable and not, as contended by the counsel for the Railways, as at 6 11(d). As is clear from the language used, it is an exceptional case other than one covered under 6 1(c), which would fall under 6 11(d). Therefore, it is made clear that from a plain reading of the tabular column under which the rates are prescribed, it is 6 1(c) that would be applicable and the petitioners shall make the necessary application, which the respondent shall consider and after fixing the rate as prescribed as above, the Respondents 3 and 4 shall provide the facility at the earliest, in any event, within six weeks from the date of receiving the application, and comply with all necessary formalities in that regard.