JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. This appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order rendered by a learned Single Judge on 8th June, 2016, in W.P. (C) No. 364 of 2014 (Tokiwaio Blah v. Meghalaya Energy Corporation Ltd. represented by its Chairman, Lumjingshai, Shillong and Ors). 2. The appellants before us are the Meghalaya Energy Corporation Limited (for short, MeECL) along with its Managing Director and Assistant Executive Engineer, Shillong Electrical Sub-Division-II. 3. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 8th June, 2016 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "12. As per the report submitted with a sketch map, I understand that the house of the petitioner is almost turned into a mini power house and I am sure nobody can stay in such situation peacefully and safely. Therefore, the only alternative is that the tower as well as the high tension wires needs to be removed from the premises of the petitioner. From the report of the Committee dated 29-03-2016 at sub-para 4 it is clearly mentioned that there is an alternative. The suggestion of the Committee is reproduced hereinbelow: "The committee examined the option of entirely bypassing the inhabited areas. From the satellite image at Annexure 5, it is seen that the area to the west and north-west of Mawlai sub-station is sparsely inhabited and prima facie it appears that this route may be feasible. However, it was informed by MeECL that these areas are reserve forest land. Construction of transmission lines within forest areas requires clearance from the Forest and Environment Department. Normally, such clearances are given only if the work is in the public interest and if no other alternative route exists. There is no certainty that clearance from the Forest and Environment Department can be obtained. The committee has also not verified whether other portions of the alternative route would be free from objections from affected landowners. Since the city limits are expanding into these areas it is likely that there would be strong resistance to aligning any new lines in these areas. Feasibility of this option is therefore dependent on clearance/no-objection being obtained from the Forest and Environment Department and other prospectively affected land owners." 13. Since the city limits are expanding into these areas it is likely that there would be strong resistance to aligning any new lines in these areas. Feasibility of this option is therefore dependent on clearance/no-objection being obtained from the Forest and Environment Department and other prospectively affected land owners." 13. On perusal of the suggestion given by the Committee it appears that the tower as well as the high tension wires can be diverted through the reserve forest land for which requisite permission is required from the Forest Department. The respondents MeECL is hereby directed to divert the tower as well as the high tension wires through the reserve forest and to remove the same from the premises of the petitioner, within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Another alternative measure which the MeECL can take is to place the high tension wires underground while taking all security measures and precaution." 4. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 8th June, 2016, particularly paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof, which are reproduced hereinabove, reveals that the issue before the learned Single Judge was in respect of a high tension power transmission line passing over the land of the respondent/writ petitioner. The matter appears to have been heard at length before the learned Single Judge. It further appears that the learned Single Judge was pleased to constitute a two member Committee in terms of an earlier order dated 10th March, 2016, to survey the spot and submit a report before the Court within a certain time frame. The Committee report was duly examined by the learned Single Judge and the Committee report dated 29th March, 2016, appears to form the basis of the order of the learned Single Judge. However, while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed MeECL to divert the tower as well as the high tension wires through the reserve forest and to remove the same from the premises of the respondent/writ petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order. Another alternative measure which MeECL could take, in terms of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, was to place the high tension wires underground while taking all security measures and precaution. 5. Another alternative measure which MeECL could take, in terms of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, was to place the high tension wires underground while taking all security measures and precaution. 5. Undoubtedly, a high tension power transmission line passes over the property of the respondent/writ petitioner, but not directly over his house. This is clear from the sketch map of the area which is annexed to the papers before us at page 108. There is, however, a Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) godown within the property of the respondent/writ petitioner over which the high tension power transmission line of MeECL passes. It has been contended by the learned advocate for the appellants that the high power transmission line came into existence in the year 1960, that is, much before the LPG godown and gas agency was commissioned. However, we need not go into this issue because that would make us delve into factual aspects of the matter by introducing evidence in a writ proceeding. 6. The appellants are directed to ensure safety of the respondent/writ petitioner, particularly in respect of the high tension power transmission line which passes over the land and property of the respondent/writ petitioner, although not directly over the roof of his house. The appellants may explore alternate possibilities keeping in mind that there is a godown storing LPG cylinders over which the high tension power transmission line directly passes. 7. Any alternative measure adopted by the MeECL should be executed keeping in mind all safety aspects. 8. The judgment and order dated 8th June, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C). No. 364 of 2014 stands modified accordingly and the writ appeal stands disposed of. 9. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, connected miscellaneous application, being MC (WA) No. 64 of 2016, also stands disposed of accordingly.