JUDGMENT
B.D. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner, the Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd.. a company Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at 14. Old Court House Street, Calcutta filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impleading the Patna Municipal Corporation, the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator and the Assistant Administrator of the said Corporation as well as the State of Bihar through the Secretary, Local Self-Government as respondents 1 to 5 respectively, for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause why the demands made on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the notices issued on its behalf under Annexures H and K to the application be not quashed and cancelled and the respondents be restrained from making similar demands in future.
2. The petitioner holds the interest as an assignee of the Patna-Binapore Electric Licence, 1923 granted by the Government of Bihar and prissa under the Indian Electric Companies Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act) to M/s. Octavius Steel & Co. Ltd., for supplying electrical energy in the area specified under the licence. The area specified in the licence was modified and extended from time to time and is included within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1, the Patna Municipal Corporation. The company laid down and placed supply lines for the conveyance and transmission of energy under the provisions of Section 3 of the Electricity Act.
3. The petitioner entered into several agreements with the Patna City Municipality and the Patna Administration Committee from time to time for providing electric lights on the street for the benefit of general public with lamp of various candle powers, and the Patna Administration Committee and the Patna City Municipality undertook to make payment to the petitioner and various rates according to the candle power. The Patna City Municipality and the Patna Administration Committee were subsequently substituted by the Patna Municipal Corporation, constituted under Patna Municipal Corporation Act (Bihar Act XIII of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation Act’). Under Section 3 of the Corporation Act all contracts which were entered into by the Patna City Municipality or by the Patna Administration Committee were deemed to have been done by respondent No. 1.
4. Acting under Section 51 of the Electricity Act the State Government by Notification No. 64-Elec., dated the 11th August, 1966, published in the issue of the Bihar Gazette of that date (Annexure 15) conferred upon the petitioner additional powers for placing of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for the transmission and distribution of energy as provided under Sections 10 to 18 and 19A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Telegraph Act’).
5. The petitioner in order to supply electric energy to respondent No. 1, erected several electric poles on the street and other places which were entrusted to respondent No. 1 by the State of Bihar under the Corporation Act. On December 8, 1967 (Vide Annexure A) the respondent No. 2 demanded from the petitioner fee for the lands occupied by it for fixing electric poles in the Corporation area and called upon the petitioner to intimate to him the total number of electric poles erected by the petitioner within the limits of the Corporation and also about the area occupied by each pole. The petitioner protested against the said demand by its letter dated December 26. 1967 (Annexure B) stating therein that it was not at all liable to pay rent for the land occupied and the poles so fixed for supplying electric energy. On the same day, i.e., December 26, 1967, the respondent No. 2 under his letter (Annexure C) intimated to the petitioner his order imposing a ground rent of Rs. 1.50 paise per month and forwarded a bill to the petitioner for Rs. 51,300/- in respect of the rent alleged to be due for the month of December, 1967. Respondent No. 2 In the said letter also held out a threat that if the rent demanded was not paid, coercive processes under Sections 205 and 206 of the Corporation Act would be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner per its letter of December 30, 1967 (Annexure D) again repudiated its liability to pay any rent for the same. As per letter of January 4, 1968 (Annexure E) respondent No. 3 intimated to the petitioner that although the latter could fix poles on the public street for supplying electric energy, the Corporation was entitled to levy ground rent for fixing electric poles under Section 262 of the Corporation Act and further directed the petitioner for the payment of the bill which was already sent to it, within a prescribed period otherwise necessary action would be taken against it for the realisation of the said amount.
By letter dated January 18, 1968 fAnnexure F) the Resident Engineer of the petitioner company informed respondent No. 3 that the Corporation had no power to levy the rent in question under Section 262. By letter dated January 30, 1968 (Annexure G) respondent No. 2 again asserted Corporation’s right to act under the said provision and thereafter the Assistant Administrator, respondent No. 4, by letter dated 5-2-1968 (Annexure H) sent a bill for Rs. 1,53,900.00 as rent for the months of December, 1957 to February, 1958 and called for immediate payment. Thereafter per letter dated the 7th March. 1968 fAnnexure K) respondent No. 4 sent another bill to the petitioner for Rs. 51,300.00 as rent for the month of March, 1958 and directed the petitioner for early payment and also attached a dem’and notice under Section 205 of the Corporation Act. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ application in this Court and obtained a rule. Cause was shown on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Counter-affidavits dated 10-4-68, 15-6-68, 23-7-68 and 5-8-68, were filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, Affidavits dated 12-6-68 and 27-7-68 were filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the counter-affidavits dated 10-4-68 and 23-7-68 respectively.
Finally the matter was heard by a Bench of this Court consisting of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and myself and by judgment dated 9-12-68, without deciding the application on merit, the petitioner was directed to take recourse to the provisions of Section 15 of the Telegraph Act and to seek a decision on the subject-matter of the dispute by such officer as the Central Government may appoint as an arbitrator. Aggrieved by the said judgment and direction the petitioner, after obtaining leave from this Court, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 418 of 1969. Their Lordships Shah and Hegde, JJ. were pleased to hold that Section 15 of the Telegraph Act did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, and set aside the aforesaid order of this Court and remitted the case to it for disposal on merit.
6. Mr. K. D. Chatter.1I, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the Corporation had no power under the Corporation Act to levy rent for the area of land occupied by the poles on the streets and by-lanes situated within the Corporation area. He submitted that the Corporation would have been entitled to levy rent only if there was any such provision in the Corporation Act. The only section relied upon on bahalf of the Corporation authorities in this regard is Section 262 of the Corporation Act which reads as:–
“No person shall, except with the permission of the Chief Executive Officer, a’nd in accordance with such conditions including the payment of rent as he may impose either generally or specially in that behalf, place or deposit upon any street or drain, well or channel therein, any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, tray, goods or other things and the Chief Executive Officer may without giving notice remove any such stall, chair,, bench, box, ladder, bale, tray, goods or other things or may in lieu of such removal collect such rent for the use of the land as he may impose.”
He urged that the expression “goods or other things” occurring in the section cannot be interpreted to include electric poles. In order to find out the intention of the Legislature in such case ejusdem generis rule is applied. He referred to a passage from Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, at pages 297 and 298 which reads:–
“In the abstract, general words, like all others, receive their full and natural meaning, and the courts will not impose on them limitations not called for by the sense or objects of the enactment…………
But the general word which follows particular and specific words of the same nature as itself takes its meaning from them and is presumed to be restricted to the same genus as those words. For according to a well established rule In the construction of statutes, general terms following particular ones apply only to such persons or things as are ejusdem generis with those comprehended in the language of the Legislature, In other words, the general expression is to be read as comprehending only things of the same kind as that designated by the preceding particular expressions, unless there is something to show that a wide sense was intended, as where there is a provision specifically excepting certain classes clearly not within the suggested genus.” He submitted that in the section under consideration the general expression ‘goods or other things’ is to be construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words namely, stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale and tray.
In my view, the rule is well established, but like other canon of statutory construction it is only an aid to the ascertainment of the true meaning of the statute. It is neither final nor exclusive. We must also look to the other provisions of the Act in order to find out the true intention of the Legislature.
7. Learned counsel further referred to Section 257 of the Corporation Act which specifically deals with laying of poles and cables etc. and reads as:—
“(1) Without the previous permission In writing of the Chief Executive Officer no person shall lay, on, under or above any public street, any railway or tramway, or erect or lay any poles or cables or the like, or operate the same.
(2) The Chief Executive Officer shall give such permission in accordance with any general or special rules which may be made by the State Government after considering any representation made by the Corporation.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Bengal Tramways Act, 1883, the Indian Railways Act, 1890, or the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
He urged that where the same statute makes general provision in respect of a particular subject-matter and makes special provision with respect to special category, the latter must prevail over the general, unless on a consideration of the statute in its entirety, a contrary intention of the Legislature is indicated as contained in the maxim: generalia specialibus non derogant.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha, learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, submitted that the Corporation under Section 262 had ample power to levy rent for the land occupied by the poles erected by the petitioner for supplying electric energy. According to him, the expression “goods or other things” will include poles also, as among the various articles enumerated in the section there are also stall and ladder which are fixtures like poles. By using the expression ‘goods or other things’ the Legislature intended to include poles also. It would have been difficult to enumerate all the articles in the said section. Therefore, the general expressions like goods of ‘other things’ were used in the section and these expressions are wide enough to include poles also. He contended that each pole occupied about one square foot of land on the street. To that extent the width of the street is diminished and thereby it caused obstruction, which could clearly fall within the provisions of the said Section 262. He argued that Sections 262 and 257 are not dealing with the same subject-matter. The former (section 262) was dealing with obstruction in the street, whereas the latter (Section 257) was dealing with laying of electric poles etc. on the public street without permission of the Executive Officer. In that view of the matter, the said maxim was not applicable.
9. It Is true that the said maxim may not be strictly applicable in the instant case. However, it is pertinent to note that both the Sections 257 and 262 fall under Chapter XVI and under heading ‘public street’. Section 257 clearly shows that the Legislature was providing therein with respect to laying of the poles and cables and they were fully aware of them. If they really intended to include poles in the various categories mentioned in Section 262 they could have easily done so. That clearly indicates the intention of the Legislature. Hence, it would not be safe to hold that the expression “goods or other things” in Section 262 would include poles also.
10. Mr. Chatterji further argued that even assuming that the expression ‘goods or other things’ contained in Section 262 would include poles, that section deals only with unauthorised obstruction in the street and it authorises the Executive Officer of the Corporation to remove such obstruction caused by any of those articles mentioned therein even without notice or in lieu of such removal, he may collect rent for such use of the land as he may impose. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner had fixed the poles under the powers derived from the Electricity Act coupled with the powers contained under Sections 10 to 18 and 19A of the Telegraph Act and it has not committed any unauthorised act contrary to the provisions contained under these two Acts. Therefore, according to him, the Corporation or its authority could not have removed the poles acting under Section 262 of the Corporation Act nor could they have claimed any rent.
11. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel is well founded. No case has been made out on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner committed any breach of the provisions contained under Section 257 of the Corporation Act. To ascertain whether the petitioner has committed any breach of the provisions under the Electricity Act and the Telegraphs Act, it will be necessary to peruse some of the Sections contained under the Electricity Act and the relevant Sections of the Telegraph Act. Section 2 (f) of the Electricity Act defines electric supply line as:–
” ‘electric supply-line’ means a wire, conductor or other means used for conveying, transmitting or distributing energy (whether by overhead line or underground cable), together with any casing, coating, covering, tube, pipe or insulator enclosing, surrounding or supporting the same or any part thereof, or any apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of so conveying, transmitting or distributing such energy and includes any support, cross-arm, stay, strut or safety device erected or set up for that purpose;” Section 2 (n) defines works as:–
” ‘works’ includes electric supply-line and any building, plant, machinery, apparatus and any other things of whatever description required to supply energy to the public and to carry into effect the objects of a licence or sanction granted under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.”
Section 3 empowers the State Government to grant licence. As mentioned earlier, in the instant case, licence was granted in the year 1923 by the State Government. Clause 9 of the said licence authorises the licensee to open and break up the soil and pavements of all streets within the area of supply which are not repairable by the Government or by the local authority. It will be useful to quote -Section 12 of the Electricity Act in extenso:–
“12. (1) Any licensee may, from time to time but subject always to the terms and conditions of his license, within the area of supply, or, when permitted by the terms of his license to lay down or place electric supply lines without the area of supply, without that area–
(a) open and break up the soil and pavement of any street, railway or tramway;
(b) open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or under any street, railway or tramway;
(c) lay down and place electric supply-lines and other works;
(d) repair, alter or remove the same; and
(e) do all other acts necessary for the due supply of energy.
(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, to lay down or place any electric supply-line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, wherever or whereunder any electric supply-line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee:
Provided that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line may be fixed on any building or land or, having been so fixed, may be altered, notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier of such building or land, if the District Magistrate or, in a presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police by order in writing so directs:
Provided, also, that, if at any time the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any such support, stay or strut has been, fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.
(3) When making an order under Sub-section (2), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, shall fix the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier.
(4) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police under Sub-section (2) shall be subject to revision by the State Government,
(5) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower any licensee to open or break up any street not repairable by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority, or any railway or tramway, except such streets, railways or tramways (if any), or such parts thereof, as he is specially authorised to break up by his lines, without the written consent of the person by whom, the street is repairable or of the person for time being entitled to work the railway or tramway, unless with the written consent of the State Government:
Provided that the State Government shall not give any such consent as aforesaid, until the licensee has given notice–by advertisement or otherwise as the State Government may direct, and within such period as the State Government may fix in this behalf, to the person above referred to and, until all representations or objections received in accordance with the notice have been considered by tha State Government.
(6) In this section, ‘occupier* of any building or land means a person in lawful occupation of that building or land.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Clause (2) applies only in those cases where the land is not dedicated to public. In the instant case, we are concerned with the lands which are dedicated to the public. Therefore Clause (1) of Section 12 will be applicable and for that no consent of the Corporation was required before commencing the work.
Section 13 lays down the procedure which the licensee will follow for giving notice of new works. Sub-clause (3) which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as:–
“(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the licensee may, in case of emergency due to the breakdown of an underground electric supply-line after giving notice in writing to the repairing authority or the owner, as the case may be, of his intention to do so. place an overhead line without complying with the provisions of Sub-section (1):
Provided that such overhead line shall be used only until the defect in the underground electric supply-line can be made good, and in no case (unless with the written consent of the State Government) for a period exceeding six weeks, and shall be removed as soon as may be after such defect is removed.”
Section 18 deals with overhead lines, the relevant portion of which reads as:–
“(1) Save as provided in Section 13, Sub-section (3), nothing in this part shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee to place any overhead line along or across any street, railway, tramway, canal or waterway unless and until the State Government has communicated to him a general approval in writing of the methods of construction which he proposes to adopt:
Provided that the communication of such approval shall in no way relieve the licensee of his obligations with respect to any other consent required by or under this Act.
(2) Where any overhead line has been placed or maintained by a licensee in breach of the provisions of Sub-section (1), the State Government may require the licensee forthwith to remove the Eame, or may cause the same to be removed, arid recover from the licensee the expenses incurred in such removal.”
12. The learned Advocate-General contended that the petitioner has committed breach of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Electricity Act by laying overhead lines. According to him, it could have laid underground cables only and that would have been an authorised act. Since the petitioner has laid overhead line which is not authorised under Section 18. the petitioner has committed serious breach and on that account he submitted that the Corporation could have removed the poles under Section 262 of the Corporation Act. On the other hand, Mr. Chatterji for the petitioner, submitted that under Section 2 (f) quoted above, electric supply line includes overhead line as well as underground cable. Besides, Section 18 simply lays down condition for laying overhead line and the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions mentioned therein. Respondents 1 to 4 in their counter-affidavit have not stated that the petitioner has not fulfilled any of the conditions required under Section 18. In affidavit dated 23-7-68 they have simply stated:–
“… … … The petitioner has never stated that the State Government, under Section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. has communicated to the petitioner a general approval in writing of methods of construction (which obviously includes the construction of overhead lines instead of underground cables) which the petitioner proposed to adopt.”
In reply to that the petitioner in Us affidavit dated 27-7-68 in paragraph 6 clearly mentioned that a general approval in writing of the methods of construction had been obtained from the Senior Electric Inspector of the State Government as envisaged under Section 18 of the said Act, A true copy of the letter received in that behalf dated the 24th February, 1960. together with a copy of the blue print of the drawing was annexed to the affidavit as Annexure 16. The respondents in paragraph 6 of their counter-affidavit dated 5-8-68 replied to that assertion of the petitioner. They stated that laying underground cables was beneficial to the public, and they further stated that the placing or laying down of the poles, which used to support overhead lines, could not be done by the petitioner under the Act. It could have supplied the line only through underground cables. Annexure 16 filed by the petitioner, according to them covered only a small part oi the area of respondent No. 1 Mr. Chatterji submitted that even assuming that the approval was not obtained as provided under Clause (2) of Section 18 quoted above, it was the State Government which may require the licensee forthwith to remove the same or may cause the same to be removed and recover from the licensee the expenses incurred in such removal. In no case, on that account the respondents 1 to 4 would be entitled to remove the poles under Section 262 oi the Corporation Act.
13. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is well grounded. From the above assertions made in the affidavits and counter-affidavits by the parties, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner had not obtained approval of the State Government, respondent No. 5. Besides, as mentioned above, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 making any allegation that no approval was obtained as required under Section 18. Even if it was not obtained, it was only the State Government which had power under Clause (2) of Section 18 to remove the poles supporting overhead lines. They could not have been removed by respondents 1 to 4 under Section 262 of the Corporation Act.
14. Mr. Chatterji submitted that only limited right was given to the Corporation under the Corporation Act. the ownership of those lands was retained by the State Government, as enumerated in various sections of Chapter VI of the Corporation Act. Section 79. which falls within that chapter, enumerates various properties which vested in the Corporation over which the Corporation has the control. They include all street public lamps, lamp-posts etc. Therefore. according to him, the Corporation cannot traverse beyond the Corporation Act While summing up, he argued that considering from various aspects, the reapendents 1 to 4 were not entitled to any rent or damages for the lands occupied by the poles, which were erected by the petitioner for supplying electric energy. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied on a judgment of B. K. Mukher-jea, J. in Municipal Commr., Barrackpore v. Barrackpore Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., AIR 1937 Cal 521. In that case the Municipal Commissioner, Barrack-pore, was plaintiff-appellant whereas the Barrackpore Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. was defendant-respondent. The appellant, i.e., the Municipality, had instituted a title suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82/- and odd annas as rent, or in the alternative as damages for the use and occupation, impleading the Barrackpore Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. as defendant. The defendant company was a licensee under the Electricity Act, which was granted a license under the Electricity Act, which was granted a licence to supply energy and lay down and place electric supply lines for conveyance and transmission of energy within specified area. The plaintiff’s case was that the defendant fixed a number of poles on roadside lands of the plaintiff Municipality for the purpose of supplying electrical energy to private persons owning houses and mills close to the roads. The company was, therefore, in law and equity, bound to pay rent or in the alternative damages, for the use and occupation of the plaintiff’s land. The rent or damages were claimed at the rate of Re. 1/- per pole per annum which, according to the plaintiff, was the usual rate in other municipalities. The defence of the Electric Supply Corporation was that those poles were fixed on the public road which were dedicated to the public use and for which no consent of the plaintiff was necessary under Section 12 of the Electricity Act, and as the work was erected under statutory authority, no rent or compensation was payable in law. Both the courts below had accepted the defendant’s contention and had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
15. It may be noticed that the facts and circumstances of that case were to a large extent similar to those of the instant case. His Lordship was dealing with Section 12 of the Electricity Act as well as Section 95 of the Bengal Municipal Act which is more or less in similar terms as provided under Section 79 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. Both these sections deal with the vesting of the property in the local authority. His Lordship at page 523 observed:–
“… … … The Electricity Act, as I have already stated, does not authorize a licensee to place any work on any private lands without the consent of the owner or occupier. This consent may be given on such terms regarding payment of rent or compensation as the parties might agree upon. In exceptional cases where the licensee can proceed without the consent of the owner, provision has been made for rent or compensation which is to be fixed by the Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police. In the case of lands dedicated to public use the Legislature clearly intended that the licensee who has been given license apparently for the benefit of the public, would be able to place its works without the consent of the authorities who are in charge of such lands and without paying any compensation for the same. In the interest of the public, if it considers necessary, the Local Government while granting license might insert a term or condition in it regarding the payment of rent or compensation for the use of such lands and in such cases undoubtedly a duty to pay rent or compensation will arise. In my opinion, it depends entirely upon the Local Government to decide as to whether the licensee would have to pay for the use of lands dedicated to public use… … …”
16. The learned Advocate-General, however, submitted that in that case his Lordship was not considering any of the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act similar to Section 262 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, nor his Lordship had considered the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Electricity Act, In my view, it is true that those sections of the Act did not fall for consideration before his Lordship, but he was considering Section 12 of the Electricity Act and Section 95 of the Bengal Municipal Act which, as mentioned earlier, is similar to Section 79 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the decision of that case has certain bearing on the issues in the instant case. In State v. Shantilal R. Desai, AIR 1958 Bom 510. Mudholkar and Tarkunde, JJ. had the occasion of dealing with Sections 12, 13 to 19 and 47 of the Electricity Act. In that case the main question to be decided was whether the electric company had committed an offence under Section 47 of the Act for failure to give notice as required under Section 13 of the Act. In that case the decision in AIR 1937 Cal 521 (supra) was referred by counsel for the parties. Their Lordships did not disapprove the observation made in AIR 1937 Cal 521 (supra) but they simply distinguished the same by observing that Section 13 was not considered in that judgment as it did not fall for consideration. The Municipality did not allege there that no notice was given to it under Section 13 (1) nor it was clear from the report that no notice was given to the Municipality. In the instant case also, the contesting respondents have not alleged that no notice was given by the petitioner as required under Section 13 (1) of the Electricity Act.
17. Now I briefly refer to the provisions contained under Sections 10 to 18 and 19A of the Indian Telegraph Act by which additional rights are conferred and liabilities imposed upon the petitioner by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 51 of the Electricity Act by notification dated 11-8-66 (Annexure 15). Out of these, only Sections 10 and 12 of the Telegraph Act need be perused. The relevant portion of Section 10 reads:–
“10. The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property:
Provided that—
* * * (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and. when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause fc), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers." Section 12 reads:--
“12. Any permission given by a local authority under Section 10. Clause (c) may be given subject to such reasonable conditions as that authority thinks fit to impose, as to the payment of any expenses to which the authority will necessarily be put in consequence of the exercise of the powers conferred by that section, or as to the time or mode of execution of any works, or as to any other thing connected with or relative to any work undertaken by the telegraph authority under those powers.”
Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents indicating that the petitioner has committed any breach of the provisions contained under those sections. Section 15 of the Telegraph Act related to settlement of disputes between telegraph authority and the local authority in limited circumstances, and it has already been held by the Supreme Court that the provision contained therein is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
18. After close scrutiny of the various provisions of the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act, it is clear that by fixing poles on the streets or the lands which are under the control of the Patna Municipal Corporation, the petitioner has not committed any unauthorised act. Evidently, therefore, the contesting respondents could not have removed the poles or in lieu of such removal could not have collected any rent for the area of lands occupied by the electric poles, under Section 262 of the Corporation Act. In that view of the matter. I am constrained to hold that the demand of rent made on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation under Annexures H and K cannot be sustained.
19. The learned Advocate-General, however, contended that the demand of rent may be treated as a demand of compensation for damages, because the fixing of poles by the petitioner on the streets and the lands in the control of the Patna Municipal Corporation, has diminished the area of the streets and due to the obstruction so caused the Corporation has suffered loss. Even in case of rent suits, in the alternative, even if it is not claimed by a plaintiff, the court in suitable cases grants, instead of rent, damages. He referred to Section 19 of the Electricity Act which reads as:–
“19. (1) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this Act, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him.
(2) Save in the case provided for in Section 12, Sub-section (3), where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount or the application of such compensation, the matter shall be determined by arbitration.”
He submitted that since in the case under consideration it may amount to dispute regarding compensation for damages between the parties, the provisions contained under Section 19 quoted above are applicable and the writ application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same has to be determined by arbitration. He urged that Sub-clause (2) relates to dispute between the holder of land not dedicated to public, whereas Clause (1) of the said section refers to the land dedicated to the public, in the instant case under the control of the Patna Municipal Corporation.
20. In my opinion, this contention of the learned Advocate-General is also not acceptable, because the plaintiff has not made out a case that by fixing the poles on the streets or on the lands of the Corporation, the petitioner has caused more damages, detriment and inconvenience than what are contemplated under Sub-clause (1) of Section 19. The area, roughly one square foot, which each pole has occupied in my opinion, is incidental and inherent in the very process of fixing the poles. The poles could not have been fixed without occupying at least that area of the land. If the petitioner by fixing the poles would have encroached upon more land than what was necessary the Corporation could have certainly made a grievance and would have claimed compensation, and in that event alone Section 10 would have been attracted. In my opinion. Section 19 is applicable only in a limited situation when there is specific dispute between a public authority and the licensee that the latter has in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under the Electricity Act, had caused more damages, detriment and inconvenience than that are inherent in the work itself. It may further be noticed that in the instant case the Corporation itself invited them to fix the poles in order to supply electric line. Therefore, unless the Corporation makes out a case that more damages, detriment and inconvenience were caused by the petitioner than what were necessary in the course of fixing the poles, in my view the claim of the contesting respondents for compensation for damages also cannot be entertained. Therefore, this submission of the learned Advocate-General also fails.
21. In the result, the demands for rent made by respondents 1 to 4 under Annexures H and K are quashed, and they are restrained from making any such demand from the petitioner in future as the law stands. The application is, therefore allowed with costs of Rs. 200/- only.
Misra, C.J.
22. I agree.