Parmanand Kaushik v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1475 of 2015 Parmanand Kaushik S/o Late Ramphal Kaushik Aged About 53 Years R/o VillageBelmundi, Post Sakarra, Thana- Hirri, Tah.- Takhatpur, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department Of Revenue, New Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Sub Divisional Officer ( R), Kota, Distt.- Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Tahsildar, Sakri, Distt.- Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Executive Engineer, ( T & M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Tifra, Distt.- Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Chakarbhata Camp, Distt.- Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

7. General Manager, M/s Inspire Industries Private Limited Belmundi, Sakarra, Distt.- Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Shri F.S.Khare, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Ramakant Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents 1 to 4. None for other respondents even in the second round. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 08/02/2016 In this case, earlier opportunities were granted to counsel for respondents 5 ,6 and 7 to file reply but neither any reply has been filed nor any representation is made.

2.

The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved by the action of the

respondents 5 and 6 in installing electric pole in front of the plot of the petitioner for extending electric line upto the plot of respondent no.7. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while laying down electric cable, respondent No.7 has affixed pole in such a manner that the electric pole is crossing over the plot of the petitioner whereas enough space is available on the other side, towards the plot of respondent No.7 for extension of line upto the plot of respondent No.7.

4.

The averments made by the petitioner is not opposed by any of the respondents by filing reply. It appears that for extension of electric line, instead of affixing pole in front of the plot of respondent No.7, respondents 5 and 6 affixed the plot in front of the plot of the petitioner in such a manner that the electric line is crossing over the plot of the petitioner.

The representation made by the petitioner has not been decided and reply has also not been filed. In view of above, the petition is allowed. Respondents 5 and 6 are directed to change the alignment of electric pole in a manner that it does not cross over and above the plot of the petitioner. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti