High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Puttamma vs The Executive Engineer (Elc) on 23 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Puttamma vs The Executive Engineer (Elc) on 23 October, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
(3

._1..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE

DATED THIS THE 23?" DAY OF OCTOBER, 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'rIcE_S,A_BDU_.L"  1'

WRIT PETITION N0.33O88  2-om   7

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT.PU'1*I'Al\/IMA,  
AGED ABOUT 80 -.  
W/O LATE RANGA.P_1=A S}j{E'I*r*Yi.,   

SR1 R.PANDURANGA_  
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS': '  ._ .  .
S /0 LA€rE 'EANAG;APPA~. .. 

SRI  .   
AGEI)'~..ABr3LIf1' 43 YEARS' _.
 LATE RMLAGAPPA SHEZTIY

SR1" H11#m?AfiN= "" ~ '
AGED A1301J'r..4o YEARS',
S/0  RANAGAPPA SHEITY.

 'VSEMT. JAYAMMA,
' AGED ABOU'f"5O YEARS
_W/'Q LATE GOVINDAPPA

A v'SR:._R.I§AP§AMESHwARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S'/'O, LATE RANGAPPA SHETTY

" .Sf;'oRE--A PASSED BY

THE DEPUf.IY-.. ¥3'O]3v1M1'SSiONER,  'CHIIIMAGALUR IN J1
M.A.G.No.39;/IogI,I"AI\I:DbEq;;i  _   ' »

 "WRIT i5i:fI"IT*ioIsI- COIVIINCL ON FOR oRDERs THIS
DAY, 'I'H_E COUR"iT¢PA_vSSEDV_'lHE FOLLOWING:

TEfhdRDER

he first reislpondent filed a petition under Section

A   Elelctricity Act 2003 read with Section 16 of

I  Act for removal of obstruction said to

I harfez  caused by the petitioners while drawing

I  trlansrnlission line over their land bearing Sy.No.31 of

Basavanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikmagalur

Taluk. In the said proceedings, notices were issued to

the petitioners. The 2W5 respondent has passed an

I
:3;

_ 3 _
interim order as per Annexure–A directing the

petitioners not to obstruct respondent

drawing the transmission line on their

aggrieved, the petitioners have -filed. this

2. I have heard the Vleairned counsel

3. It is evidenttiromt materials on record that
the 15* respiondent has ‘adpiet-i.ti’oVn nnder Section 164
of Electificitif.[§ict3l.2:0’0if3-._read– ikilitlli Section 16 of Indian
Telegraph of obstruction said to have
been “‘c.ai1sed-._ petitioners for drawing the

transmission , iine over their land. In response to the

issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners

ihagzé before him on 24.8.2010. On that day,

they sought time to file their objections. The 211°’

V. ‘»respon’dent instead of granting time has proceeded to

an interim order [Annexure–A) directing them not

it “to obstruct respondent No.1 from drawing the

transmission line Without assigning any reasons. I am

it