Fatik Bhattacharjee v. The State of India and 11 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010231882022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/105/2023o FATIKoBHATTACHARJEEo S/OoLT.oKHAGENDRAoBHATTACHARJEE,oAoPARTNERoOFoM/SoAKSAHo GANGAoCONSTURCTIONoHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToKoKo BHATTAoROAD,oHATIGOAN,oGUWAHATI-6oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAMoR/Oo ANANDANAGARoPANUoFORToROAD,oGUWAHATI-22,oDISToKAMRUPoMo ASSAMoANDoALSOoAoR/OoSRISHTIoRESIDENCYoLANKESWARoJALUKBARI,o GUWAHATI-14oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoINDIAoANDo11oORS.o REP.oBYoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoPOWERoELECTRICITYoDEPTT.oDoBLOCK,o GROUNDoFLOORoJANATAoBHAWANoASSAMoSECRETARIAToDISPUR,o GUWAHATI-781006 2:ASSAMoPOWERoDISTRIBUTIONoCOMPANYoLTD.o(APDCL) oREP.oBYoITSoCHAIRMANoBIJULEEoBHAWANoPALTANoBAZARoGUWAHATI-781001 oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAM 3:THEoMANAGINGoDIRECTOR oBIJULEEoBHAWANoPALTANoBAZARoGUWAHATI-781001 oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAM 4:THEoGENERALoMANAGERoAPDCL oGUWAHATIoZONEoBIJULEEoBHAWANoPALTANoBAZARoGUWAHATI-781001 oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAM 5:THEoDEPUTYoGENERALoMANAGER oGUWAHATIoIIoCIRCLEoAPDCLoMALIGAONoGUWAHATI-781009oDIST.o KAMRUPoMoASSAM 6:THEoSUB-DIVISIONALoOFFICER oAZARA PageoNo.#o2/4 oELECTRICALoSUBoDIVISIONoAPDCLoAZARA oGUWAHATI-781017 oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAM 7:THEoCHIEFoEXECUTIVEoOFFICER oGUWAHATIoELECTRICALoCIRCLEoIIoAPCDLo(LAR)oJALUKBARI oGUWAHATI-12oGUWAHATIoMETROPOLITAN oDEVEOPMENToAUTHORITY oBHANGAGARH oGUWAHATI-5 8:AKANoSARMA oCHIEFoEXECUTIVEoOFFICER oGUWAHATIoELECTRICALoCIRCLEoIIoAPCDLo(LAR)oJALUKBARI oGUWAHATI-12oGUWAHATIoMETROPOLITAN oDEVEOPMENToAUTHORITY oBHANGAGARH oGUWAHATI-5 9:SRISHTIoASSOCIATESoINDIA oAoPARTNERSHIPoFIRMoHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToMAZZAININEo BoITAGoPLAZA oABC oNEARoRAJIVoBHAWANoG.S.oROAD oGUWAHATI-781005oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAMoREP.oBYoONEoOFoITSo PARTNERoSRIoPIUSHoAGARWAL 10:PRAGATIoFISHoFIRMoSOCIETY oAoPARTNERSHIPoFIRMoREP.oBYoONEoOFoITSoPARTNERoSRIoKHAGENoCH.o DAS oS/OoLT.oGAJIoRAMoDAS oR/OoGARIGAON oP.S.oJALUKBARI oGUWAHATI-781014oDIST.oKAMRUPoMoASSAM 11:MRIDULoHAZARIKA oPRESIDENT oSRISTHIoRESIDENCYoSOCIETY oBLOCKoNO.o2oFLOORoNO.o6 oFLAToNO.o26/BoSRISTHIoRESIDENCYoLANKESWAR oJALUKBARIoGUWAHATI-14oDIST-KAMRUPoMoASSAM 12:THEoCHIEFoMINISTERoSPECIALoVIGILANCEoCELL oREP.oBYoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoCHIEFoMINISTER oGOVT.oOFoASSAMoDISPUR oJANATAoBHAWAN oGUWAHATI-o Page No.# 3/4 For the Appellant : Mr. P. Sarmah, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.N. Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Assam for respondent Nos.2 to 7. Ms. S. Konwar, Jr. Government advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate for respondent No.9.

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

24.03.2023 This intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5563/2021 seeks to question the legality and validity of the order dated 09.11.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge accepted the I.A.(Civil) No.863/2022 filed by the respondent No.9 in the writ petition under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and vacated the ad interim stay order dated 16.10.2021 passed in WP(C) No.5563/2021 whereby, it was directed that no electrical items including transformers etc. shall be installed over the land of the respondent No.10 in the writ petition i.e. Pragati Fish Firm Society.

¶2We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the materials available on record.

¶3This Court is apprised that by way of making the installation of the electrical components (supra), 50 houses in the society, in relation to whose control the parties are litigating shall be provided electricity. Owing to the interim stay order dated 16.10.2021, the said process had been stalled. Page No.# 4/4

¶4In this background, we are of the firm opinion that vacation of the ad interim stay order dated 16.10.2021 would not cause any irreparable loss to the petitioner, rather the continuance thereof, was causing grave harm to the right of 50 home owners to get electricity supply which is an important civil right.

¶5At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner sought liberty that he may be allowed to pursue the writ petition so as to seek a final disposal thereof. However, his submission was that the observations made in the interim order may not prejudice the outcome of the writ petition.

¶6In this regard, we may note that at para No. 16 of the impugned order dated 09.11.2022, learned Single Judge has already clarified that the observations in the said order were being made only for the purpose of deciding the application for vacating stay and shall not affect the final adjudication of the writ petition on merits. Thus, reiterating that the observations made in the order dated

09.11.2022 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.863/2022 shall not prejudice the final outcome of the writ petition, the parties are left at liberty to pursue the matter before the learned Single Judge for ventilating their grievances.

¶7The instant writ appeal is disposed of.

¶8No order as to cost.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant