- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gopalakrishnan v. District Collector
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner challenged Ext. P3, an order passed by the District Collector (first respondent) which permitted an electric line to be drawn across the petitioner's land to supply electricity to the third respondent's house. The factual matrix as recorded in the opinion is: the third respondent wired her building and sought an electric connection; the Electricity Board officers stated the shortest route for the line to the third respondent's house was across the petitioner's paddy field; the petitioner refused permission. The third respondent filed Ext. P1 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, a copy of which was sent to the Collector. The Assistant Executive Engineer (second respondent) submitted a statement reporting a permanent footpath across the petitioner's land and that the shortest feasible route for the line was along that footpath and would not require cutting trees. The petitioner objected on grounds that the line would interfere with proposed construction and create a permanent danger. The District Collector, relying on his findings and invoking powers stated in Ext. P3 (referring to S. 12(2) of the Electricity Act and also mentioning the Telegraph Act), overruled the petitioner's objections and allowed the line. The petitioner filed the present Original Petition challenging Ext. P3.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the District Collector had the statutory power to issue Ext. P3 under S. 12(2) of the Electricity Act to permit drawing the line across the petitioner's land.
- Whether S. 51 of the Electricity Act renders S. 16 of the Telegraph Act applicable to the drawing of the impugned line (i.e., whether S. 16(1) Telegraph Act could be invoked).
- Whether the impugned line drawn across the petitioner's land was an "electric supply line" or only a "service-line" for the purposes of applying S. 51 and thus S. 16 of the Telegraph Act.
- Whether the District Collector's finding that a "permanent pathway" existed across the petitioner's paddy field (and thus justified permitting the line) was supported by evidence and properly reached.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Ext. P3 was issued under S. 12(2) of the Electricity Act, but that provision does not empower the Collector to make an order like Ext. P3; S. 12(2) applies only to provision of supports (stays or struts) for overhead lines and not to permitting an over-head line across private land in the manner authorised by Ext. P3.
- S. 51 of the Electricity Act could not be relied upon because the line drawn to the third respondent's house was a "service-line" (i.e., a connection from a distributing main to a single consumer) and not an "electric supply line"; therefore S. 16 of the Telegraph Act could not be invoked via S. 51.
- The Collector's finding of a permanent pathway across the petitioner's property was not based on evidence and therefore was erroneous and produced a jurisdictional defect in Ext. P3.
Second Respondent / Assistant Executive Engineer (Board) Arguments
- The petitioner's land is a paddy field with an existing electric supply line along the open pathway on the eastern side; the extension to supply the third respondent would use the same open pathway.
- If the line were drawn along that pathway, no loss, damage, hazard or diminution of property value would result and paddy cultivation would not be affected by a 230-volt service line.
- Alternate routes would require cutting trees and crossing other private properties; the technically feasible and shortest route was through the petitioner's paddy field because no trees needed to be cut and no special clearance was required.
- The existence of the pathway was noticed during the District Collector's inspection; Ext. P3 was passed on 4-11-1988 and the line was drawn and energised on 1441-1988 (as stated in the affidavit), making the Original Petition infructuous according to the second respondent.
Third Respondent's Position
- It is noted in the opinion that Ext. P1 (the third respondent's application) did not mention any pathway across the petitioner's property.
- The third respondent (through counsel) asserts that Ext. P3 was in fact issued under S. 16(1) of the Telegraph Act (as contended to the court), but Ext. P1 itself did not claim prior use of any pathway across the petitioner's land.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner ((1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851) | When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons mentioned in that order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons later (for example, via affidavit). | The court applied this principle to hold that the validity of Ext. P3 must be determined by the grounds stated in Ext. P3 itself; the Collector could not rely on later-supplied reasons in affidavits. Because Ext. P3 itself invoked S. 12(2) (and did not invoke S. 16(1) Telegraph Act), the court examined the order on that basis and rejected supplementation by affidavit. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by examining (a) the statutory source of power relied upon in Ext. P3, (b) the legal characterisation of the line drawn across the petitioner's land, and (c) whether the factual findings supporting the order were justified by the record.
First, applying the principle from Mohinder Singh, the court emphasised that the validity of Ext. P3 must be tested by the reasons and statutory provision expressly invoked in the order itself; reasons cannot be supplemented later by affidavits. Ext. P3 itself specifically cited S. 12(2) of the Electricity Act as the source of authority and did not invoke S. 16(1) of the Telegraph Act in the body of the order.
Second, the court analysed the statutory definitions. It quoted S. 2(f) defining "electric supply-line" and S. 2(1) (service-line) as follows:
- "Electric supply-line" — means a wire, conductor or other means used for conveying, transmitting or distributing energy (whether by overhead line or underground cable), and includes any support, cross-arm, stay, strut or safety device erected for that purpose.
- "Service-line" — means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended to be, supplied to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the supplier's premises, or to a group of consumers on the same or adjoining premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main.
Using these statutory definitions, the court reasoned that a "service-line" is conceptually a subset of "electric supply-line" intended to supply a single consumer from a distributing main. The court observed that lines drawn with the aid of posts are "electric supply lines" and that the connection from the post to the building is the "service-line." In the present case the line required the fixing of posts in the petitioner's property to reach the third respondent's house; therefore the line so drawn had to be treated as an "electric supply line" (not merely a small service lead). Because an electric supply line was being drawn, S. 51 of the Electricity Act (which had been invoked by the Board's counsel) came into operation, and consequently S. 16 of the Telegraph Act could be applied through that mechanism.
Third, on the facts, the court found fault with the District Collector's treatment of alternatives and with the Collector's factual finding that a "permanent pathway" existed across the petitioner's land. The third respondent's original application (Ext. P1) did not mention a pathway; the Assistant Executive Engineer's counter-affidavit stated the pathway was noticed only when the Collector inspected the site. The court held that the Collector's finding of a permanent pathway was not supported by evidence in the material relied on when making Ext. P3 and that the finding, made without proper authority or factual basis, adversely affected the petitioner's rights. The court also noted that the feasibility of the petitioner's suggested alternate alignment had not been properly appreciated by the Collector.
On that combined legal and factual analysis the court concluded that Ext. P3 was unsound: although S. 51 and S. 16 could, in principle, be invoked if an electric supply line had been properly shown to be at issue, the Collector had not approached or decided the factual matters correctly and had made an unsupported finding as to a permanent pathway. For these reasons the court quashed Ext. P3 and directed the Collector to reconsider the third respondent's petition after affording all parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a final order within one month of receipt of the judgment.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The court QUASHED Ext. P3 (the District Collector's order allowing the electric line across the petitioner's property) and disposed of the Original Petition by remitting the matter to the first respondent with directions to re-adjudicate after hearing the parties and to pass a final order within one month.
Direct Implications for the Parties
- Ext. P3 has been set aside; the Collector must take back the third respondent's petition to his file and re-dispose it in accordance with law after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
- The court directed that the final order on the petition should be passed within one month from the date the District Collector receives a copy of this judgment.
- The Original Petition in the court was disposed of in these terms, and the court ordered that a photocopy of the judgment be issued to the parties on usual terms.
Broader Legal Significance
The opinion applies existing statutory definitions and a settled principle from Mohinder Singh concerning reliance on reasons stated in an order; it does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond these applications. The decision's immediate effect is remedial and confined to quashing Ext. P3 and directing a fresh adjudication on the facts with proper opportunity to the parties.
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P3 order passed by first respondent. The circumstances under which Ext. P3 happened to be passed are, in short, as follows: Third respondent wanted to have electric line drawn to her house across the properly belonging to the petitioner. After wiring her building she was waiting for electric connection to her house by drawing line. According to the officers of the Electricity Board, the shortest route through which electric line could be drawn to the house of third respondent is across the petitioner's land. Since the petitioner did not accord sanction for the said purpose third respondent moved Ext. P1 application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad. A copy of the same was sent to first respondent as well. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board filed a statement before the Collector that there exists a permanent foot path to third respondent's property across the land of the petitioner and that electric line can be drawn along the said footpath and that will be the shortest line. He also reported that the petitioner's land being paddy field, no tree, will have to be cat. According to him, the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioner would entail cutting of trees and that line will have to pass across properties belonging to others. Petitioner in his turn approached the first respondent against the drawing of line across his property. He stated that he is having an idea to put up a residential building and electric line if drawn will be a hindrance to the building. He also stated that line if drawn will be a permanent danger to the building which is about to be constructed. The District Collector after considering the relative contentions raised by the petitioner on the one hand and third respondent and the Assistant Executive Engineer on the other, came to the conclusion that there exists a permanent pathway across the petitioner's property to reach the house of third respondent and that electric line is to be allowed to be drawn along that pathway which is the shortest route. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers u/s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Electricity Act’ and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Telegraph Act’ the District Collector over-ruled the objections raised by the petitioner and allowed electric line to be drawn across his property to give electric connection to third respondent. Hence this Original Petition.
2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2nd respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer. The averments made therein are to the following effect. Petitioner's property is a paddy field. There is an electric supply line through the pathway which is on the eastern side of the pctitioner's property. That supply line is to be extended through the same open pathway and then energy supplied to the house of third respondent. If the line is so drawn, no loss, damage or hazard will be caused to the property of the petitioner. Nor will the value of the property be diminished. Paddy cultivation will not be affected by drawing service line of 230 volts. For approaching third respondent's property there exists two alternate routes. One through the pathway of the petitioner's paddy field and the other by cutting across 2 or three parambas with residences. The only technically feasible and shortest route for drawing electric supply line to third respondent's property is through the paddy field of the petitioner in as much as no tree is to be cut and no clearance need be maintained. The existence of the pathway was noticed at the time of inspection of the property by the District Collector Ext. P3 order was passed on 4-11-1988 and the line drawn and energised on 1441-1988. Therefore, the Original Petition has become in fructuous and it has only to be dismissed.
3. Third respondent in Ext. P1 has not made mention of the existence of any pathway across the property of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 2nd respondent it is averred that the existence of path way was noticed at the time of the inspection of the property by first respondent. Reference to the pathway is to the ridges seen in the paddy field. The fact that people are allowed to Walk along the ridges separating the plots in a paddy field will not make those ridges public pathways. Third respondent had no case that she was using the property of the petitioner for ingress into and egress from her land. The District Collector basing on the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer found the existence of a permanent pathway to the house of third respondent through the paddy field belonging to the petitioner when he passed Ext. P3 order. This finding entered by the first respondent is not based on any evidence because in the counter affidavit the Assistant Executive Engineer states that the pathway was found out only when the District Collector inspected the site.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the District Collector had exercised power u/s. 12(2) of the Electricity Act for issuing Ext. P3 order. That provision, according to counsel, does not empower the District Collector to pass an order in the nature of Ext. P3. According to him, the power u/s. 12(2) of the Electricity Act can be invoked only for the purpose of providing support to over-head line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an over-head line. This provision has no application to the facts of this case and so the order, Ext. P3, was one issued without authority. In reply to this argument, learned counsel representing the Board brought to my notice S. 51 of the Electricity Act which makes S. 16 of the Telegraph Act applicable to the drawing of lines. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing third respondent that Ext. P3 order was infact issued u/s. 16(1) of the Telegraph Act.
5. The order, Ext. P3, specifically makes mention of the provisions contained in S. 12(2) of the Electricity Act as the source of power for issuing the same. It is true that first respondent has also stated that the order is issued under the Telegraph Act as well. When the validity of an order is questioned before court, the validity or otherwise of that order is to be tested on the facts stated therein. Grounds for issuance of that order are not to be stated or supplied in the affidavit filed in the case. If the validity of an order is to be tested on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit, then no order will be open to challenge because reasons can be supplied later. This is not the legal position. At this juncture it is worthwhile to note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner ((1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851):
“The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out”.
6. So, for finding out the source of power for first respondent to pass Ext. 3 order one has to look into Ext. P3 itself. First respondent has not invoked any of the provisions u/s. 16(1) of the Telegraph Act.
7. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that S. 51 of the Electricity Act can be pressed into service only for drawing electric supply lines and not for service lines. In the instant case the line drawn to the house of third respondent across the property of the petitioner is not ‘Electric supply line’ but it is only ‘service line’. This being the position, it is argued that first respondent cannot invoke the powers u/s. 16 of the Telegraph Act on the basis of S. 51 of the Electricity Act.
8. Electric Supply line has been defined in the Electricity Act under clause 2(f) as follows:
“electric supply-line means a wire, conductor or other means used for conveying, transmitting or or distributing energy (whether by overhead line or underground cable), together with any casing, covering, coating, tube, pipe or insulator enclosing, surrounding or supporting the same or any part thereof, or any apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of so conveying, transmitting or distributing such energy and includes any support, cross-arm, stay, strut or safety device erected or set up for that purpose.
9. S. 2(1) of the Electricity Act defines, ‘service-line’ in the following terms.
“Scrvice-Iine means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended to be, supplied:
(i) to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the supplier's premises, or
(ii) from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on adjoining premises, supplied from the same point of the distributing main”.
10. A reading of these definitions will clearly makes out a marked difference between the above said two lines. Electric supply line is one for conveying transmitting or distributing electrical energy. Service-line is an electric supply line intended to supply energy to a single consumer or a group of consumers from the same point of the distributing main. So, the service-line is to be drawn from the distributing main. The lines drawn with the help of electric posts are electric supply lines and connection taken from the post to the building are service lines. For giving electrical energy to third respondent line had to be drawn by fixing posts in the property belonging to the petitioner. The line so drawn can only be considered as supply line. That line is an electric supply line. An electric supply line can have a dead end at the post which is fixed at the terminal. The fact that the distribution line ends at a post does not make the line anything other than electric supply line. Since the electric supply line has to be drawn for giving electrical energy to third respondent, S. 51 of the Electricity Act comes into operation and consequently, the power u/s. 16 of the Telegraph Act can be invoked.
11. The feasibility or otherwise of the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioner has not been properly appreciated by first respondent while issuing Ext. P3 order. First respondent without any authority had found the existence of a permanent pathway across the petitioner's property. That finding entered by the first respondent without jurisdiction will go to adversely affect the petitioner and his rights over the property. Since first respondent has not approached the issue in the correct perspective, I quash Ext. P3 order and direct first respondent to take back the petition filed by third respondent to his file and to dispose of the same in accordance with law after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Final order on the petition should be passed by first respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The original Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parlies on usual terms.
Alert