Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010010552025 2025:GAU-AS:4235-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/123/2025 1: M/S BHAGAWAN MET PRIVATE LTD AND ANR REGISTERED OFFICE AT 105 B.R. TOWER 21 JANA PATH LANE ULUBARI P.O. GUWAHATI - 781007 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS SRI BINOD KEYAL SON OF SRI SRI LAL KEYAL. 2: SRI BINOD KEYAL S/O LT. S.L. KEYAL R/O KESHAV KUNJ SONI RAM BORA ROAD ULUBARI P.O. GUWAHATI - 781007 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. VERSUS 1: THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND 3 ORS REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR P.O. GUWAHATI - 781001 DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER DISTRIBUTION LOWER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SONAPUR SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE SONAPUR ASSAM. 4:THE FREDER MAINTENANCE ENGINEER SONAPUR ELECTRICAL SUB- DIVISION APDCL LAR SONAPUR ASSAM. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Choudhury, Standing Counsel, APDCL for all the respondents. Page No.# 2/3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 07.04.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) As per the order passed today in the connected interlocutory application, being I.A. (Civil) No.155/2025, Registry has numbered this writ appeal today itself. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The appellants have approached the Writ Court with a grievance that the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) is erecting electric polls on the land of the appellants for which they are in possession of a patta. The APDCL has contested the claim of the appellants before the Writ Court and has argued that the electric polls have been installed pursuant to a scheme in the year 2016 and the same have been erected out of the patta land of the appellants. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has observed that in view of the opposite stand taken by the parties, it appears that there are some disputed questions of fact which require evidence to be recorded. Hence, the appellants are required to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to persuade us to take a different view in the matter than the view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge, because admittedly, certain disputed questions arose in this matter and the same can only be decided on the basis of the evidence. Hence, we do not find any force in this writ appeal and the same is, Page No.# 3/3 therefore, dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant