IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2768 of 2017 Decided on: 31st March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranu Ram …..Petitioner Versus HPSEB Limited and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.4 and 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition was filed in the year 2017 seeking following direction:- “(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents to immediately remove the threat of overhead hanging HT lines from the landed property of the petitioner and also pay compensation to the petitioner for causing mental tension as well as threat to lives of the family members of the petitioner for such a long time because of their sheer negligence.” 2. Petitioner’s grievances in the writ petition pertain to respondent-State Electricity Board’s action in not 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 removing the hanging High Tension Line from his landed property. 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed reply to the writ petition. In terms of the reply, respondents No.1 to 3 have denied being inactive and have pleaded that grievances of the petitioner stood redressed. Height of 22 KV High Tension Line has been enhanced upto the standard height as per the applicable Rules. Relevant portion of the reply reads as under:- “1. That the petitioner has not come with clean hands and purposely has not disclosed the complete facts before this Hon'ble Court. As a matter of fact, the replying respondents have acted upon by redressing the grievances of the present petitioner wherein the height of the 22 KV HT line has been enhanced upto the standard height as per the Rules. The present petitioner made representation to the Sub Divisional Officer (civil) Chopal and the same was transferred to the replying respondents. Hence, there is no question to in-action on the part of the replying respondents. It is further submitted that the replying respondents are the instrumentalities of the State and undoubtedly it is the bounden duty to maintain the HT/LT Lines as per the statutory requirements. It is further submitted that the work at the site i.e. required ground clearance of live conductor of 22 KV HT Line which is passing through the fields of the Petitioner at 2 No. point was maintained upto the sage limit by installing 1 no. additional 10 meters long tubular pole between the existing lengthy span at point No. 1 and 1 No. 9 meters long steel tubular poles were replaced with 2 No. steel tubular poles of 10 meters long at point No.2 in the month of October, 2017. Hence, now there is no risk/threat at the spot in question where HT line is passing over the land of the petitioner. 2. That it is pertinent to state here that as the application for the rectification/maintenance of the line was 3 received by the replying respondents, as stated in the foregoing para, proper maintenance stood done accordingly and there is no question of any danger of life of human being. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner rendered in-fructuous.” Respondents have further pleaded there being no threat/danger by the High Tension Line passing from the fields of the petitioner and that proper height as required under the Electricity Law is being maintained. That it was at two points where the wires were hanging low. Upon petitioner’s making representation, required maintenance works were carried out and height of 22 KV High Tension Line stands maintained as per the statutory norms. 4. The reply was filed by the respondents on 12.03.2018. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. We are now in the year 2026. In view of redressal of petitioner’s grievances by the respondents, this writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 31, 2026 Judge Mukesh