IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9006 of 2008
Date of Decision: 6.1.2009
Baba Siksha Samiti, Jainabad & others ....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Vidhyut Parsaran Nigam & others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Narender Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents.
T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral).
This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a
mandamus directing the respondents to remove a 130 KV electricity tower
from the area where the same has been erected to prevent any harm being
caused to the children, who are said to be studying in a school set up by the
petitioner Samiti and a Gaushala in the neighbourhood thereof.
The petitioners’ case appears to be that on account of erection
of the tower aforementioned there are serious apprehensions about valuable
lives being lost on account of any accidental snapping of the electric wires
or electrocution. So also there is apprehension about the safety of the
animals in the Gaushala, established by the petitioner-Samiti.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is, inter-alia,
CWP No.9006 of 2008 (2)
pointed out that the parcel of land on which the pole in question has been
erected is owned by Sher Singh and Ram Singh, who have jointly filed a
suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents
restraining the defendant-respondents from erecting the said pole. It is also
pointed out that the suit was accompanied by an application for ad-interim
injunction, which application was examined and dismissed by the trial
Court by an order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge
(S.D.), Rewari. An appeal preferred against the said order also failed and
was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari by an order dated
7.5.2008. A copy of the appellate order has been placed on record by the
respondents as Annexure R.5. From a reading of the said order, it does
appear that the question whether the respondents were justified in erecting
the pole and/or whether there is any cause for worry to the land owners,
plaintiffs in the suit (appellants in the appeal) has been examined by the two
Courts below and repelled. The respondents argue that the present petition
purporting to be in public interest is not maintainable having regard to the
fact that the entire controversy relating to the erection of the pole has been
looked into, no matter, at an inter-locutory stage in a civil action, which is
still pending before the Courts below. It is submitted that the controversy
sought to be agitated in public interest is at the instance of the very same
plaintiffs, who have failed to obtain an injunction from the Civil Court.
There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in the submission
made by the respondents. Since the parcel of land on which the pole has
been erected, admittedly, belongs to Sher Singh and Ram Singh (plaintiffs
in the suit mentioned above) and since the said two plaintiffs have already
tried their luck in the Civil Court and failed to obtain any injunction, we see
CWP No.9006 of 2008 (3)
no reason for our interference in public interest at the instance of the
petitioner-Samiti, which claims through the same two owners on the basis
of lease in its favour. That is so especially when there are doubts about the
existence of the Gaushala and the School. Such being the position and
keeping in view the fact that disputed questions of fact arising for
consideration cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated upon by us in these
proceedings, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of our extra-
ordinary writ jurisdiction in public interest.
We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition but reserve liberty
for the petitioners to seek such other redress as may be open to them in law
including one by way of an appropriate civil action before the competent
Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. Nothing stated in this order
shall be deemed to be an expression of any final opinion on any of the
questions of law and fact arising for consideration before the Civil Court.
No costs.
(T.S. THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
6.1.2009
ds