High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/3073/2016dismissed

Ranjana Devi v. Anil Kaplush

2017-03-21Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH COCP-3073-2016 (O & M) Date of decision: 21.03.2017 Ranjana .... Petitioner V/s Er. Anil Kaplush

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.

***** Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral) Counsel representing respondent has referred to short reply by way of affidavit of Sikander Singh, Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. According to him, the matter was considered as directed by the writ court. A speaking order has been passed on 30.11.2016. He has referred to relevant para thereof, which reads as under:- "The residents were apprised about this project and was also apprised that the height of 66 KV line shall be sufficiently higher than the old 33 KV line.

A small portion of house of the petitioner falls under the Right of Way of this 66 KV line. But to take care of their safety and other social factors, extra height of 3 metre has been provided to tower No.24 and 25, amidst which the house of the petitioner is situated. Minimum ground clearance of 66 KV conductor in this section in which the house falls is 28 feet. The constructions work of the line has been completed with cooperation by the residents. Mirthal & Nangal Bhoor Sukhpreet Kaur 2017.03.22 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP-3073-2016 (O & M) ::2::

Sub-stations shall get much improved power supply at 66 KV voltage level with the commissioning of this Project. As such the request letter of Smt. Ranjana Devi W/o Sh. Sikander Singh resident of village Kauntarpur, Tehsil & District Pathankot is disposed off as above please."

In view of the above, it is evident that matter has been examined by the Chief Engineer and some measures have already been taken to avoid inconvenience to the petitioner whose house is situated near the power line. In view of the above, it appears that grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. He, however, submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition to avail alternative remedy, in case, any cause of action survives.

Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. (RAJAN GUPTA) March 21, 2017 JUDGE sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sukhpreet Kaur 2017.03.22 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document