Gram Panchayat, Banwala vs State of Haryana and others

S.S. Nijjar, A.C.J.

The petitioner Gram Panchayat aggrieved against the action of the respondents shifting the 33 KV SubStation from Village Banwala to Village Risalia Khera has approached this Court and has also sought quashing of the tender notice issued by the respondents on 20.5.2006 (Annexure P7) Package B serial No. 7. It is alleged that respondent No. 6 Executive Engineer belongs to Village Risalia Khera and, therefore, the said 33 KV Sub Station is being shifted to his village from Village Banwala.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the written statement. It has been denied that the decision to set up a new 33 KV SubStation at Village Risalia Khera is a result of exercising of colourable powers by the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVN) under any influence. It has been submitted that the matter was decided on merits after due consideration by taking into consideration the following facts :

"(a) Village Risalia Khera is large in area and population as compared to village Banwala. The population of village Banwala was 3979. A true extract photo copy of the report of Census of India of 2001 of Distt. Sirsa showing the populations of both the villages are attached herewith as Annexure R5/5.

(b) That total number of electricity connections under various categories i.e. Domestic, commercial, agriculture, L.T. Industrial in village Raisalia Khera is much higher than in village Banwala. There are total 802 electricity connections existing/pending connections in village Banwala. A photo copy of the status of existing/pending connections in two villages is attached herewith as Annexure R5/6.

(c) The scheme for creation of 33 KV SubStation of village Banwala as well as Raisalia Khera is to benefit 6 villages namely Banwala, Raisalia Khera, Bijuwalia, Ramgarh, Rattakhera and Rajpura. The geographical location of villages is such that village Banwala is situated at the tail end of the benefiting area whereas Raisalia Khera is located at the center of the area proposed to be benefited by creation of new SubStation in that area. A photo copy of the Rough Site Sketch is attached herewith as Annexure R5/7. Technically the SubStation should always be located at the central place of the proposed area to be fed. As the location of SubStation at Central place minimizes the length of 11 KV lines to be fed from this SubStation. The location of 33 KV SubStation at load center of village Raisalia Khera will reduce the creation of new 11 KV lines by at least 6 KM for feeding various villages under the scheme and same will also reduce the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 12.00 lacs. Also setting up of 33 KV SubStation at village Raisalia Khera being the load center will ensure better voltage and quality supply for all the affected villages.

(d) The proposal of 233 KV SubStation at village Banwala involves creation of new 33 KV line of length of 16 Kms whereas creation of 33 KV Sub Station at village Raisalia Khera involves creation of new 33 KV lines of 12 Kms length i.e. the length of new 33 KV line is 4 KM less in case of village Raisalia Khera as compared to the proposal at village Banwala. The expenditure in creation of new 33 KV lines is Rs. 4 lacs per KM and the Nigam will save Rs. 16 lacs in setting up 33 KV SubStation at village Raisalia Khera. Hence, the proposal at village Raisalia Khera is more economical.

(e) The grounds on which the proposal for creation to 33 KV Sub Station at village Banwala was deferred by Chief Engineer/PD&C during 2004 still exist, rather the same have became more critical. The proposal was deferred due to nonavailability of spare capacity at 132 KV SubStation, Odhan to feed the proposed 33 KV SubStation, Banwala. There is only one 16/20 MVA 132/33 KV Power T/F at 132 KV SubStation, Odhan (feeding SubStation). It is feeding the following 33/11 KV Power T/F at various SubStations :

1.

33/11 Power T/F at Odhan

8 MVA

2.

33/11 Power T/F at Kalanwali 6.3+8

14.3 MVA

3.

33/11 Power T/F at Rori 4+5

9 MVA

4.

33/11 Power T/F at Kharia 4+5

9 MVA

5.

33/11 Power T/F at Baraguda

8 MVA

(under construction in the Commissioning stage)

Total

48.3 MGA

In addition to the above the capacity of 33 KV SubStation at Kalanwali and Rori have been proposed to be argumented to 16 MVA each due to overloading i.e. An additional load of 8.3 MVA will be put on 132 KV Sub Station, Odhan. After that the total connected load at 132 KV SubStation, Odhan will become 56.6 MVA i.e. the feeding station for the proposed 33 KV SubStation, Barwala is critically overloaded and has no capacity to feed any additional load if the 33 KV SubStation is created at village Banwala and thus practically, it is not feasible.

(f) On the other hand the feeding of 33 KV SubStation at village Raisalia Khera has been proposed from 16/20 KVA 132/33 KV Power T/F Dabwali which is lying idle. The load on this T/F is zero i.e. there is no problem at the feeding 132 KV SubStation rather idle capacity of the SubStation will be utilized by creating 33 KV SubStation at village Raisalia Khera. It is also clarified that if feeding of 33 KV SubStation Banwala is proposed from 132 KV SubStation, Dabwali, this will involve creation of extra 4 KM 33 KV lines as compared that of village Raisalia Khera with an additional expenditure of Rs. 16 lacs was compared to village Banwala."

The above grounds recorded by technical experts taking a decision to set up the SubStation at village Risalia Khera in preference to village Banwala are sound and reasonable. Decision regarding technical matters taken by the competent authorities as regards the setting up of the SubStation at village Risalia Khera is not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for that is the domain of the experts. Besides, there are serious disputes about the claim made by the petitioner and it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to enter into investigation of the disputed questions of facts which would also involve assessment of technical reports submitted by the respondents.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.