Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3744 (ALL)

Mukhtiyar Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2016-11-18

DILIP B.BHOSALE, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7. The instant proceedings in public interest had been instituted seeking a direction requiring the respondent authorities to establish an electricity power substation at village Jhanjhar. A further direction was sought to restrain the respondents from shifting the said electricity power substation out of the village referred to above. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had referred to and relied upon an initial proposal submitted by the respondents for establishment of an electricity power substation at Jhanjhar. He further referred to the other materials appended with the writ petition to contend that the respondents had arbitrarily reviewed the decision taken to establish the substation at Jhanjhar, even though a foundation stone laying ceremony for establishing the said substation had taken place at Jhanjhar. He also referred to the fact that the land had also been earmarked in the village and necessary amendments had also come to be made in the revenue record. On 7 November 2016, we had directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to take instructions and file an affidavit to explain why the work for installation of the substation had not commenced even though a foundation stone laying ceremony had taken place on 22 August 2015. Pursuant to our directions, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents in which it has been categorically stated that no plan to establish the substation at village Jhanjhar had ever been approved. The respondents state on affidavit that no steps had been taken for construction of the substation at village Jhanjhar. It is then submitted that the substation which is named Kakod No. 2 has subsequently been constructed and established under the Integrated Power Development Scheme of the Government of India in the Town Area of Kakod. The stand taken in the affidavit is evidenced from the following averments made in paragraphs 16,17 and 21 which read as under: "16. It is then submitted that the substation which is named Kakod No. 2 has subsequently been constructed and established under the Integrated Power Development Scheme of the Government of India in the Town Area of Kakod. The stand taken in the affidavit is evidenced from the following averments made in paragraphs 16,17 and 21 which read as under: "16. That it is respectfully submitted that the establishment of substation at Village-Jhanjhar or independent substation for the said village is not technically required as once the electricity load of Kakod town area stand transferred to Kakod No 2 Sub Station, the capacity of electricity supply from 33/11 KV Sub Station Kakod No. 1 will categorically increase for the rural areas including Jhanjhar village. 17. That furthermore it is respectfully submitted that at present the electricity is distributed in village Jhanjhar from 33/11 KV Substation Kakod No. 1 and after the construction of new Electricity Sub Station -Kakod No 2 will certainly have an positive impact in the quality of distribution of electricity in Jhanjhar village as well as also in nearby rural areas of Kakod Town Area. 21. That the contents of paragraphs no. 7 & 8 is not admitted in the manner as stated and in reply thereof it is respectfully submitted that the possession over the said land has never taken by the electricity department in Jhanjhar Village nor any amount for installation of Sub station Kakod No. 2 in village Jhanjhar has ever been sanctioned by the department." From a perusal of the averments so made, it is apparent that the substation has already been established and constructed in the town area of Kakod. The affidavit further asserts that with the construction of the new electricity substation, the quality of electricity distribution for Jhanjhar village is also likely to improve. In our considered view, the issue of where a particular electricity substation is to be established must necessary be left to the expertise and technical know-how of the contesting respondents. The petitioners cannot by way of a writ petition seek the construction of an electricity substation at a particular spot. Their primary concern must obviously be the supply of electricity. In our considered view, the issue of where a particular electricity substation is to be established must necessary be left to the expertise and technical know-how of the contesting respondents. The petitioners cannot by way of a writ petition seek the construction of an electricity substation at a particular spot. Their primary concern must obviously be the supply of electricity. As is evident from the averments taken in the counter affidavit, the electricity substation has already been constructed and is likely to have a positive impact on the distribution of electricity in the rural areas including the village of Jhanjhar. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground warranting interference with the policy decision taken by the contesting respondents to establish the substation within the Kakod Town Area. Insofar as the contention in respect of the earmarking of land and recordal of the name of the respondent Corporation is concerned, we may only note the statement made on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to the effect that the respondent Corporation lays no claim to the land earmarked and that it would be open to the concerned Gram Sabha to take steps for correction of the relevant revenue record. We may only note that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have categorically stated that possession of the earmarked land was never taken over by them. Consequently, no impediment lies in the way of the concerned Gram Sabha to take such further remedial measures for correction of the relevant revenue record as may be required. The writ petition is disposed of subject to the above observation.