High Court Karnataka High Court

Vijay Kumar Chourasia vs Karnataka Power Transmission … on 16 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Vijay Kumar Chourasia vs Karnataka Power Transmission … on 16 December, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT I3,1\N('iE\LOR"E 

D./\"I'l?iD THIS THE, mm DAY 01': Df:IC£iI\/{BEER :2_Q1__{;   A.

BEFORE

THE HON MRJUS TICE  'ABE UL NA    " 

WRIT PETITION NOS.-41050 To 41551/20.l(} (G3/i~KEI3) V'  V'

Beiwccn:

I Vijay Kumz-11' Ch()lIi'€tS;iz1~.,_
S/0 Ramdev Ch0u1'asi:;1,. » _ --
Aged about 50 years.  V

2 VijayPrakgtzsh'Ch«:)urzi§ia,g 
S/0 Ranaciev Ci;{o_u--tfasiz1,' '  _
Aged ahioui _3?4 .)'ezir--s.. - '

Both an-3 aufzt"No.22;:"Ch()LIriis;.i;i"" '
Heights,' « ff' 'Cr09s,._As.EjwatlmN'agar.

Maratl1aE.ii;LBéi1';ga1o:¢s:-.  " V   Pctiticmers.

(By Sri G»;A/[21:im1na12;m."AdY;)_§ .

Amt»  ~

1 'KA:,1i*na£211r;,1I.ic311v igim ited,
V An2111:j21'i1iz1(> C irate,
 A.BangaE0.r'-é ~ 560 009,

  f<c{;i.gi. By its Scc:'ctz11'y.



K)

(By Sri N.K_. Gupta, Adv.)

C()ns1ituti_Qn of 1'nd'1:s;:'
Annexure  _ '

'-- A . '=.Sri  Cr£i;)Ea, icarnod Counsel is directed to Eakc notice

The Chief Erlgiilecl' (_E.1ecl').,
Bailgaiom T!.'iH1S113iS$i()l1 Zone.
K'a1I'I'l£l[£1i\'[i Power Transmission
Corporation Limiied,

Anamia Rao Circle.

Bangalore - 560 009.

The I-Executive Engineer {E1ec1).. 
Bzingaiore. Majm W()E'kS, 
South Division, . .
.Kz1r:1ata}.<z1 Power Tra¥131T1i3SiQIi"
Corporation Limited,  
Amanda Ra0Circ1c. 
Bzmgalore «A 560 ()()9;__ ,_

Tfjis W'i'i.t.iF'¢titio.fi ;:.:}"iié_,'d umic§i%"Ar£ic1es 226 & 227 of the
'pi~z1y_izi'g.jo"smash the order dated 3.7.2010 at

_This Wfii Pciiitiflil K:-oming on for Preiiminary Hearing this
 day, £.i1.i§: Court passcnii {he fciiowirigz

ORDER

‘V for tho :’cS”;.)o:1.d’e131s.

X i,_ , .. Rcsocuiidents.

4. Materials on record clearly establishes that petitioners

have protested for diawing of the transmission line over their lands

by erecting the towers. Having regard to the facts. fl:ind_V

circumstances of the ease, 1. direct the respondents to tre:tit”thei_’w_ri’t

petitions as a protest for drawing the HT transrn_is:~;ioni”linegover _ ll

their lands. The petitioners are p€1″IT1ltt€(lil__O l’i1etapplicatiiort-s hei’ore=;; i

the competent authority under Seetio-n__ l6(“the Trsllegravph Apt, vi

.1995 for removal of obstruction. On tiling of sueh an application,
the competent authority is direeted to isst1le”nort.iti’erto the petitioners,

grant them an opportunity toAfi!e._ob_jee.tions alisolan opportunity

of beingi7heard and*thereafter._p’ass appropriate orders thereon in

accordance wit_hiilawi.i’ say that till the disposal of the

1}”123.t(i1?,’.i:tl”l(3x’fCSp()ndCI![SH shall not erect the tower and draw the

transrrtissiori.plineias proposed and drawing of the transmission line

as’per–the noti.”i’icr-ition in question is subject to the order, which may

‘be pttssed.pVh.yil the competent authority. Petitioners are also

l_’i<e.<§trait1ued from putting uykany Construction over the lands in

C.

question till the Lfif~§}’)().’§£E1 of the matter beimc the competent

authority as ezbovc. Writ p€Ei1i(j)nS are di3p()s€d of aL’:co1’cEir1giy.

4. Sri N.K. Gupta. Eeanled Counsel for the rcspc’)11c’.~¢’r1£s ‘*i:5

permitted to fiic his vakalath within eight weeks f’1′<)111– t:'0d;1y:;'Ni:

costs. –

BMM/-