Dhanbad Public School Through Its Secretary Anil Kumar Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA Ministry Of Power Through Its Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Dhanbad Public School, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated March 9, 2018, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India. This letter directed the school to bear the cost of shifting a 33 KAV High Tension power line of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) from its premises. The estimated cost, including GST, was Rs. 18,40,143, as per a survey report and estimate dated September 1, 2017, by Respondent No. 4. The school sought to quash this direction and compel DVC to shift the line without insisting on payment of the estimated amount, which DVC had agreed to shift in principle.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw with liberty to pursue the matter before the competent authority of the Corporation for negotiation on the quantum of the amount. The Court granted this liberty, directing that if the petitioner approaches the corporation, a decision would be taken within four weeks of receiving the order. Additionally, considering the safety of the 5,000 students, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, to monitor the situation if the transmission line is not shifted within four weeks. The Deputy Commissioner was also instructed to report to the Central Board of Secondary Education and the Secretary HRD, Union of India, if necessary, to prevent any casualties. The Court did not decide on the applicability of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, or the liability for costs, as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is applicable to the petitioner, absolving them of the cost of shifting the high-tension power line? The petitioner argued that Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, exempts them from paying the cost of shifting the overhead high voltage transmission line, which was installed by DVC without their consent and passes over the school building where 5,000 children study. 2. Whether the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) can legally demand the cost of shifting the high-tension power line from the petitioner? The respondents, specifically DVC, contended that Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, does not confer powers to act under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as it pertains to renewal and not initial posting of lines. They also argued that no notification by the appropriate government conferring power to act under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act was produced. DVC further submitted that the school purchased the property after the line was installed and that the Supreme Court in "Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors." held that in such cases, only user's rights are acquired, and the title holder is entitled to compensation, which is not applicable here as the petitioner bought the land post-installation. DVC stated they were willing to shift the line as a lenient measure due to the presence of students, but subject to payment of costs.