APHC010208022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10589/2024 Between: Korrapati Venkata Krishnama Naidu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) 4. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The petitioners, owners of different plots in survey Nos.28/5A2, 28/5A1, 28/5B, 28/6, 27/1A2 and 27/2 in Thottambedu Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupathi District, filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the official respondents in allowing 33 K.V. High Tension Two Electric Lines through 20 feet road in the aforementioned survey numbers instead of laying SRS,J W.P.No.10589 of 2024 through 30 feet road in survey Nos.27/1A1 and 27/1C (Venture developed by 11th respondent), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts succinctly, are that one D. Pratap Reddy, owner of the land in survey Nos.28/5A2, 28/5A1/, 28/5B, 28/6, 27/1A2 and 27/2, developed the land and divided the same into 40 plots with the formation of 20 feet wide roads. On the western side of the plots, the land belonging to respondent No.11 in survey Nos.27/1A/1 and 27/1C is situated, which was divided into 29 plots with 30 feet roads. Respondent No.11 requested the officials of APSPDCL to shift the high-tension lines, passing across his land and influenced the officials to lay the 33 K.V. high-tension pillars/wires through 20 feet road. The APSPDCL authorities, considering the request of respondent No.11, prepared a plan to lay 33 K.V. high tension two electric lines in survey Nos.27/1A1, 27/1C, 27/1A2 and 27/2 through 20 feet road, abutting to the petitioners’ plots. The said 33 K.V. high tension towers occupied 7 feet out of 20 feet road, and thus, the width of the road is decreased to 13 feet. The developer has to form drainages with a width of 1½ feet on either side, which would further decrease the width of the road to 10 feet. The petitioners are deprived of their free passage. Initially, the official respondents prepared a different plan. However, by changing the alignment unilaterally, three towers were erected on a 20-feet road on the southern and eastern sides. The authorities also changed the arrangement of points of towers. The petitioners made representations dated 15.04.2024 and 18.04.2024, requesting the authority not to lay 33 K.V. high tension two electric lines through the subject 20 feet road. Before changing the electrical lines, the respondents did not issue any notices to the petitioners, calling for their objections. Acting upon the representations made by the petitioners, respondent No.7 addressed a letter dated 19.04.2024 (Ex.P1), to the Executive Engineer instructing the authority to clear the site objection and take up the work. Despite the same, the laying of towers was completed. Therefore, the petitioners made another representation dated 25.04.2024, Ex.P2 and filed the above writ petition. Page 3 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.10589 of 2024 3. Despite the service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.11. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 4 to 8. It was contended, inter alia, that respondent No.11 applied through Mee-seva on 20.10.2023, by paying the requisite fee, for shifting of lines. Accordingly, the Field Inspection was conducted in the surrounding locality and a road which is in existence and parallel to the existing line, was identified/selected. Thereafter, an estimation was prepared and approved on 20.11.2023. Subsequently, the works were undertaken on a turn-key basis by respondent No.11, under the supervision of respondent No.8 and the work was completed in the first week of May, 2024. Due to the misunderstandings between the petitioners and respondent No.11, the above writ petition is filed. The petitioners, without approaching the consumer grievance redressal form constituted under section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, filed the above writ petition. The authorities acted as per the provisions and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.V. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 4 to 8. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 4 to 8 reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and counter affidavit. CONSIDERATION: 7. As seen from the pleadings, the grievance of the petitioners is that, on the request made by respondent No.11, the authorities, without following the procedure, have changed the alignment and erected the poles near the petitioners’ plots. The petitioners after completion of shifting of electrical lines, approached this Court. Whether the respondent/authorities, while acting on the request made by respondent No.11, followed the procedure before shifting SRS,J W.P.No.10589 of 2024 the electrical lines or not and whether the authorities changed the alignment and erected poles near the petitioners’ plots, being disputed questions of fact, cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the consumer grievance redressal forum was constituted under Section 42(5) of the Act, to resolve disputes of this nature. In the considered opinion of this Court, the redressal forum is the appropriate authority. 8. The Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers 1 held that: “123. We have used the expression industrial adjudicator by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires inquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be industrial tribunal/court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.” 9. No doubt, the Deputy Executive Engineer issued a letter dated 19.04.2024 (Ex.P1), to respondent No.11 to clear the site objection and to take up the work and further directed to keep the work on hold. However, as seen from the affidavit, the writ petition was filed on 30.04.2024 and it was pleaded in the affidavit that the erection of the poles was completed. 10. In the counter affidavit, filed by the official respondents it was pleaded about the authority’s power and jurisdiction to erect poles for the supply of electricity to the consumers. However, in the case at hand, the issue relates to the shifting of the poles, but not the erection of the poles for the first time. Whether the shifting of the poles is causing inconvenience to the petitioners and preventing them from using the passage, will be examined by a competent authority. 1 (2001) 7 SCC 1 SRS,J W.P.No.10589 of 2024 11. Given the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the consumer redressal grievance forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the Act or any other competitive authority, by making fresh representation by annexing all the relevant material. If the petitioners approach the redressal forum by making representation, the learned forum shall look into the same and pass appropriate orders by issuing notice to the affected parties, strictly as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 13.03.2025 ikn SRS,J W.P.No.10589 of 2024 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.10589 of 2024 Dated: 13.03.2025 IKN