ORDER : Let Deputy Commissioner, Giridih be impleaded as respondent no. 11 in the instant writ petition, for which necessary correction be carried by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day in red ink in the array of respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein alleged erection of high voltage electrical poles on his private land having an area of 3.20 acres situated at Plot no. 491, Mouza Mathadih, DistrictGiridih. Despite strong protest by him before the authorities of Respondent-Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DVC' in short) vide letter dated 17th June, 2004 (Annexure1), the electric tower was constructed. Petitioner further alleges that it came to his knowledge that Respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'JSEB' in short) has also erected high voltage electrical poles on his Plot, to which he represented vide letter dated 7th July, 2004 before the Chairman, J.S.E.B as well as Sub Divisional Officer, JSEB, Giridih, Electrical Engineer, (South), Makatpur, Giridih as also Electrical Superintending Engineer, Giridih Circle. Petitioner contends that despite prohibitory orders passed under Section 144 Cr. P.C by Deputy Commissioner, Giridih on his representation on 27th July, 2004 and notice issued to Respondent-Sub Divisional Engineer, (Electrical), D.V.C the construction continued. It is alleged that six poles have been erected for the purpose of supplying electricity with Rolling Mill of respondent no. 10. Electrical poles are still standing and being used for transmission to electricity plant. However, factory of respondent no. 10 has since been closed. 4. D.V.C., in its counter-affidavit, have taken the plea that under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, it is empowered by notification of Government of Bihar dated 1st October, 1969 to undertake construction and maintenance of high, medium and low tension electric supply lines in the district of Hazaribagh and other districts, which covers the present Giridih district. D.V.C has also contended that no provisions of Indian Electricity Act, Electric (Supply) Act of 1948 or Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 as well as Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 have been violated. It has also refuted the contention of the petitioner and stated that the consumer has himself constructed the tower feeder/line, which has been handed over after commissioning to D.V.C and it becomes its property. 5. Respondent no. It has also refuted the contention of the petitioner and stated that the consumer has himself constructed the tower feeder/line, which has been handed over after commissioning to D.V.C and it becomes its property. 5. Respondent no. 10, in its affidavit, has taken the plea that D.V.C authority has erected the poles over the land of respondent no. 10 bearing Plot no. 491, under Khata no. 69. He submits that petitioner had purchased the part of land bearing Plot no. 491 measuring an area 3.60 acres of land while remaining 40 decimals of land had been purchased by respondent no. 10 by registered sale deed. The allegation has also been made in the affidavit that petitioner has constructed a boundary wall on the entire land including the land of respondent no. 10. It has objected to the contention of the petitioner that D.V.C has wrongly erected high-tension high voltage electrical poles on petitioner's land. 6. Respondent-J.S.E.B has, in its counter affidavit, taken the stand that the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Giridih (Rural) on written inspection reported through letter dated 3rd November, 2012 (Annexure-A) that three number of Rail Poles of JSEB are existing upon the alleged plot through which 33 KV power supply was provided to respondent no. 10, M/s. Niranjan Hi-Tech. It has further been stated that the said connection of J.S.E.B is under disconnection for long. As per the same report, four number of Rail Poles of D.V.C are existing on the said alleged plot through which D.V.C is providing power supply to its other consumers. 7. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 6 to 9, official of J.S.E.B stating that the land bearing Plot no. 491 under khata no. 69 is Gairmazrua Khas Land having total area 3.60 acres. It is stated on the basis of Annexure-11 to the writ application that out of total area of 3.60 acres of land in the said plot, Zamabandi of merely 3.20 acres have been carved out in the name of Manoj Sharma, son of the petitioner. Therefore, by petitioner's own admission rest 40 decimals of land in Plot no. 491 is not of the petitioner rather is Gairmazrua land. 8. Respondents, in their said affidavit, have raised the plea that the instant matter involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. 9. Therefore, by petitioner's own admission rest 40 decimals of land in Plot no. 491 is not of the petitioner rather is Gairmazrua land. 8. Respondents, in their said affidavit, have raised the plea that the instant matter involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of 4th Proviso to Section 14 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, in support of his submission that D.V.C is a deemed licensee under the Act of 2003. The D.V.C Act, 1948 in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 2003, shall continue to apply to that Corporation. It is submitted that the Act of 2003, under Section 67 specifically provides for works of licensees and confers power upon the appropriate Government to frame rules for carrying out such works by any licensee. The Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 67(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 by Central Government, which provides the procedure for the licensee to carry out works. Under Rule 3 thereof, a licensee may carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works, fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land. In case an objection raised by the owner or occupier, the licensee is required to obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of police or any other officer authorized by the State Government. The District Magistrate or the authorized officer may on being satisfied order direct removal of any such works, support, stay or strut or its alternation as well. It is submitted that Respondent-D.V.C or J.S.E.B both are passing the buck on each other while the disputed structure still continues to remain over petitioner's land. 10. The relevant details noticed hereinabove therefore render a picture where apart from the petitioner there are more than one stakeholder involved. The basic issues required to be inquired into is whether the construction of electrical poles is at all on the petitioner's land or on a land which is Gairmazrua or belonging to respondent no. 10. 10. The relevant details noticed hereinabove therefore render a picture where apart from the petitioner there are more than one stakeholder involved. The basic issues required to be inquired into is whether the construction of electrical poles is at all on the petitioner's land or on a land which is Gairmazrua or belonging to respondent no. 10. The other ancillary question would then arise whether in case of permission or consent being denied by the land owner, proper permission has been obtained from the competent authority by the licensee to carry out such construction. These questions now fall within the jurisdiction of authorized officer or Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district in terms of Rules of 2006 framed under Section 67(2) of the Act of 2003. 11. Therefore, without making any comments on the merit of the case, it is deemed appropriate to relegate the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, respondent no. 11 with an application to inquire into the matter in terms of the Act of 2003 and Rules of 2006. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih after due notice and hearing to the concerned parties, would take a decision in that regard in accordance with law within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of appearance of the parties on any application of the petitioner. The respondent no. 11 may in case any of the parties fail to appear despite notice, proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of