Orissa Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. Asian School of Business Management
Trust, (2013) 8 SCC 738
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Ss. 29(2) & (3) - Transmission scheme - Belated objections raised after execution of
scheme, held, not permissible - Transmission scheme notified inviting representations/objections within 2 months from
persons interested - No representation filed within stipulated period by anybody - Scheme executed by erecting
transmission towers in area covered by scheme - After 14? yrs of publication of scheme, a parcel of land within scheme
area purchased from its owner by a Trust (predecessor of R-1) and building constructed thereon - Trust/R-1 filed writ
petition seeking shifting of transmission towers by diverting line from existing alignment - Held, landowner from whom
land was purchased, having made no representation/ objection against scheme, Trust/R-1 which constructed building
thereon knowing well about execution of scheme by erecting towers in area including the land, cannot demand
shifting/diversion of transmission line at a belated stage, (2013) 8 SCC 738-A
Constitution of India
Arts. 226, 227 and 300-A - Locus standi - Person aggrieved - Person not concerned when cause of action arose has no
locus standi -
Mandamus - Transmission scheme notified under S. 29 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 inviting
representations from persons interested within two months from publication of scheme - Owner of land in question, which
fell within area covered by scheme, made no representation/objection against scheme - Scheme executed by erecting
transmission towers in the area including the land concerned - After 14? yrs of publication of scheme, Trust (predecessor
of R-1) purchased the land from owner and constructed building thereon - Writ petition filed by Trust/Respondent 1
seeking mandamus for shifting transmission towers by realignment of line - Held, during period of notification of scheme
and invitation of representations, Trust/R-1, being not in picture, had no locus standi to seek mandamus, (2013) 8 SCC
738-B
Constitution of India
Arts. 226 and 227 - Principle of res judicata - Applicability - Substantially similar prayers in respect of reliefs made in
both writ petitions - In first petition under Art. 227 against State Electricity Board (predecessor of A-1), petitioner (R-1)
sought directions restraining Board/Appellant 1 from erecting any transmission tower on its land in execution of
transmission scheme notified under S. 29 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - After dismissal of petition, another writ
petition filed by same petitioner seeking directions to Board/A-1 not to make construction of transmission tower/line within
the land of petitioner and to take final decision regarding re-routing/realignment of overhead line within stipulated period -
Held, second petition barred by principle of res judicata, (2013) 8 SCC 738-C
Constitution of India
Art. 226 - Abuse of process of court - Availing parallel remedies till writ appeal against order of Single Judge of High
Court, entertained - Writ petition during pendency of suit seeking similar relief - After dismissal of petition, second writ
petition filed seeking substantially similar relief, but same also dismissed by Single Judge of High Court - Pending suit
withdrawn only after ensuring that writ appeal was entertained by Division Bench of High Court - Held, this amounted to
abuse of process of court - Exemplary/Penal costs of Rs 10 lakhs imposed for abuse of process of court, (2013) 8 SCC
738-D
Infrastructure Laws
Energy and Power
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Ss. 28 and 29 - Transmission scheme - Judicial review - Scope - Writ petition seeking
direction restraining State Electricity Board/A-1 from erecting transformer towers/line over petitioner's land and re-
routing/realigning overhead line - Alternative proposals in that regard made by petitioner - Affidavit filed on behalf of
Board giving germane reasons for not accepting alternatives - Held, High Court erred in not accepting Board's
explanation and instead entertaining prayer of writ petitioner and undertaking exercise of ascertaining availability of
alternative route through which transmission line could be routed,
Art. 136 - Costs - Exemplary/Penal costs for abuse of process - Respondent, held, responsible for frustrating
implementation of statutory scheme involving public interest by resorting to unwarranted litigation, hence directed to pay
costs of Rs 10 lakhs to appellant, (2013) 8 SCC 738-F
No comments:
Post a Comment