Urmila Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16511 of 2017 ====================================================== Urmila Devi wife of late Chandeshwar Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Brahmpura, P.S. - Sadar Muzaffarpur, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. BSPHCL at Patna.

3.

The Managing Director, North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. NBPDCL, Third Floor, Vidyut Bha 4.

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Muzaffarpur. 6.

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Muzaffarpur.

7.

The Essel Vidyut Vitran Muzaffarpur Pvt. Ltd Plot No. 28, Near Gobarshi Chowk, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffa 8.

The Union of India through Secretary Power and Energy, Government of India, New Delhi.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh :

Mr.Mukund Kumar :

Mr.Ashwani Raj Narayan For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S.P.Singh -GA-3 :

Mr.Indeshwari Prasad, AC to GA-3 :

Mr.Ritesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-06-2025

1. The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent authority to remove the installation of electric overhead line of capacity 33000 KV over to the residential house of petitioner located at villageBrahampura, Thana-Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur vide

Patna High Court CWJC No.16511 of 2017 dt.19-06-2025 2/3 Khata No. 466, Khesra No. 464, keeping in view that such high electricity current of 33000 KV may always endangers the life of petitioner and his family and further to direct the concerned respondent authority to comply Section 68 and 67(2)(c).

2. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondent.

3. It is the specific contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that despite making a representation, the concerned respondent authorities did not consider it.

4. On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the representation was made before Muzaffarpur Vidyut Vitaran Limited, which is not a party to the writ petition. Therefore, he has no instructions as to whether any order was passed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 5 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In turn, respondent No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16511 of 2017 dt.19-06-2025 3/3 5 shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, considering the merits of the case.

5. With the abovesaid observation, the writ petition shall stand disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) vinita/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.06.2025 Transmission Date