Smt. Madhubala vs. State Of U. P Through Principal Secretary Energy Department And 3 Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on the statements made by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court directed that the electricity pole in question shall be shifted from inside the petitioner's campus to a place to be decided by the Electricity Department. The Court did not delve into the specific legal obligations or rights concerning the exact re-erection location beyond the petitioner's insistence that it not be within her campus. The reasoning was based on an amicable resolution reached through the statements of counsel. The operative direction was for the Electricity Department to complete the shifting exercise within two weeks from the date of production of a true, attested copy of the order. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Madhubala, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel respondents 3 and 4, the Executive Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer of the Electricity Distribution Division, Ghaziabad, to shift a damaged electric pole from her property. The petitioner had applied for the shifting on October 15, 2020. An estimate of Rs. 23,250/- plus GST of Rs. 4,185/- was provided on February 18, 2021, and the petitioner deposited the amount on March 16, 2021. The respondents had not yet shifted the pole. The respondents stated they were ready to shift the pole but the petitioner insisted it not be erected in front of her boundary wall, but rather in front of the adjoining house's boundary wall, which was objected to by the neighbor due to a sewer line.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to shift the damaged electric pole from the petitioner's campus, and if so, to what location? (Question of law and fact, concerning the duty of the electricity department and the rights of property owners). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the electricity department should shift the damaged pole from her campus. She deposited the estimated cost, including GST, for the shifting. Her primary concern was that the pole should not be re-erected within her campus. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that the Electricity Department was ready to shift the pole to a nearby location. However, they highlighted a dispute regarding the re-erection site, as the petitioner objected to it being placed in front of her boundary wall, and the adjoining neighbor objected to it being in front of his boundary wall due to a sewer line. The respondents did not rely on any specific statutory provisions, circulars, or precedents.