# Ishwar Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 20607 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ishwar-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46545
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 67 - Works of
Licensees Rules, 2006 - Rules 3 and 10 -
Shifting of transmission line - Liability of
licensee
-
Compensation
for
damages
-
Though the licensee is empowered to carry out
the works contemplated under the Act, 2003
and
the
Licensees
Rules,
2006
framed
thereunder but, for carrying out such works, it
must keep in mind that minimal damage or
inconvenience is caused to the public or private
person and their property - However, if
damage is caused or the work carried out is to
the detriment or inconvenience of any party,
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the licensee would have to fully compensate
the
person
concerned
for
any
damage,
detriment or inconvenience caused by him or
any one employed by him - The order of
District Magistrate to shift transmission line
was held within jurisdiction. (Para 10 and 12)
B. Civil Law - Revisional power of UP Electricity
Regulatory Commission - Scope - Revisional
power and Appellate power - Distinction -
Held, no doubt, the revisional powers of the
Commission are not limited by the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure but the term
revision
by
itself
limits
the
scope
of
consideration and it cannot be equated to
appellate power - Whereas an appeal confers
statutory vested right on the litigant which
accrues
the
moment
the
proceedings
in
question are instituted, the right of revision is
merely a discretionary power to be exercised
by the revisional court according to the
circumstances of the case or exigencies of the
situation - A person cannot as a matter of right
claim the proceedings to be revised. (Para 14
and 15)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

11 All. Ishwar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
petitioner that on mere death of any one of the
partners, the constitution of the firm would not
change, is liable to be rejected and is,
accordingly, rejected.

7. Insofar as the second contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
licence cancellation stood vitiated as no
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner before passing the order impugned
is concerned, suffice it to say that the order
impugned is not punitive but declaratory in
nature as it merely declares about the
automatic consequence of condition no.5 in
the licence. Importantly, condition no.5 of
the
licence
has
not
been
challenged.
Otherwise
also,
condition
no.5
is
an
enabling provision whereunder a firm even
after losing a partner could continue its
business under the licence for three months.
It thus, gives a time window to the licencee
firm to obtain a fresh licence with the
changed constitution of the firm.

8. In the instant case, as no fresh
licence was obtained within that window
period and by the time the petitioner gave
information regarding death of one of its
partners, already three months had passed,
the licence stood automatically lapsed in
terms of the aforesaid condition no.5. Thus,
in our view, the impugned order being more
of an information about automatic lapse of
licence, no opportunity of hearing was
required to be provided before its issuance.

9. In view of above, we find no merit in
this petition. The prayer of the petitioner to
quash the impugned order dated 03.07.2021
is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, since the order impugned
is not based on any misconduct on the part
of the firm or any of its partners, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of this petition by
giving liberty to the petitioner to apply for a
fresh licence for the firm by giving its new
constitution. It is expected that if any such
application is submitted after completing all
the necessary formalities, the same shall be
addressed in accordance with law and
appropriate orders shall be passed thereon,
preferably, within a period of one month
from the date of filing of such application
alongwith a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2021)11ILR A349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 20607 of 2021

Ishwar Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Abhitabh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kartikeya Saran

A. Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 67 - Works of
Licensees Rules, 2006 - Rules 3 and 10 -
Shifting of transmission line - Liability of
licensee
-
Compensation
for
damages
-
Though the licensee is empowered to carry out
the works contemplated under the Act, 2003
and
the
Licensees
Rules,
2006
framed
thereunder but, for carrying out such works, it
must keep in mind that minimal damage or
inconvenience is caused to the public or private
person and their property - However, if
damage is caused or the work carried out is to
the detriment or inconvenience of any party,
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the licensee would have to fully compensate
the
person
concerned
for
any
damage,
detriment or inconvenience caused by him or
any one employed by him - The order of
District Magistrate to shift transmission line
was held within jurisdiction. (Para 10 and 12)
B. Civil Law - Revisional power of UP Electricity
Regulatory Commission - Scope - Revisional
power and Appellate power - Distinction -
Held, no doubt, the revisional powers of the
Commission are not limited by the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure but the term
revision
by
itself
limits
the
scope
of
consideration and it cannot be equated to
appellate power - Whereas an appeal confers
statutory vested right on the litigant which
accrues
the
moment
the
proceedings
in
question are instituted, the right of revision is
merely a discretionary power to be exercised
by the revisional court according to the
circumstances of the case or exigencies of the
situation - A person cannot as a matter of right
claim the proceedings to be revised. (Para 14
and 15)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Chandrika Prasad (dead) through LRS & ors. Vs
Umesh Kumar Verma & ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 531

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Kartikeya Saran for
the respondents 4 and 5; and perused the record.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the
order, dated 17.03.2021, passed by U.P.
Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow
(for short the 'Commission') in Petition No.1530
of 2019. The petitioners also seek quashing of
the orders dated 26.08.2019 and 05.01.2018
passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut in
Misc. Case No.14 of 2018 and Misc. Case No.7
of 2016, respectively. In addition to above, the
petitioners pray for a direction upon the
respondents to lay electricity transmission lines
according to the sanctioned map approved by the
District Magistrate, Meerut (hereinafter referred
to as the D.M.) vide order dated 23.08.2016
passed in Misc. Case No.2 of 2016.

3. To have a clear understanding of the
controversy at hand, a glimpse at the facts would
be apposite. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited-4th respondent (for short the
Nigam)
proposed
to
lay
an
electricity
transmission line in village Karnawal, District
Meerut. The route for the line was to pass from
near a structure (room) that housed a tube-well
of the petitioners. Aggrieved with proposed
line's close proximity with that structure, an
application was submitted by the petitioners
before the D. M. with copy to the Managing
Director (for short M.D.) of the Nigam. The M.
D. of the Nigam, on 29.05.2015, passed an order
rejecting the application of the petitioners after
noticing and observing that the proposed line
was not passing from over the room or structure
housing the tube-well of the petitioners and that
the poles of the proposed line were placed on
chak-road (i.e. village path-way), though near
petitioners' place but at a distance which would
obviate any threat or danger of an accident.
Aggrieved with rejection of their application, the
petitioners filed Writ-C No.10033 of 2016,
which was disposed off, vide order dated
31.03.2016, by giving liberty to the petitioners
to apply to the D. M. in terms of the second
proviso to Rule 3(b) of the Works of Licensees
Rules, 2006 (for short 'Licensees Rules, 2006')
framed under the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short
'Act, 2003'). Pursuant to that liberty, the
petitioners filed a representation before the D.M.
The D.M., after calling for reports, vide order
dated 23.08.2016, directed shifting of the
proposed transmission line,. That shift made the
transmission line to pass through the fields of
11 All. Ishwar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
351
few tenure holders. Consequently, Jaipal Singh
and another (the predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents 6/1 to 6/3) filed Writ-C No.48248
of 2016, which was disposed off, vide order
dated 04.10.2016, by giving liberty to those
petitioners to represent their cause to the D.M.
under the Licensees Rules, 2006. As a result, the
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 6/1 to
6/3 submitted a representation before the D.M.
The D.M. again examined the matter and, after
considering spot inspection report, upon finding
that the initially proposed route of the
transmission line, prior to its alteration by order
dated 23.08.2016, was to be mounted on poles
installed on the chak-road adjoining plot
Nos.1239, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1265, 1266 and
1267 and was not passing over anybody's field,
by his order dated 05.01.2018 affirmed the
original proposed route of the transmission line.

4. Being aggrieved with the restoration of
the original route, the petitioners filed Writ-C
No.11086 of 2018 to question the order dated
05.01.2018 on the ground that the D. M. held no
jurisdiction to revisit the order dated 23.08.2016
which was passed after hearing both sides,
particularly, when it was not challenged in WritC No.48248 of 2016; and that the writ court's
direction issued in Writ-C No.48248 of 2016
was obtained by concealing the order dated
23.08.2016. After noticing the aforesaid plea
taken by the petitioners, Writ-C No.11086 of
2018 was disposed off, vide order dated
30.03.2018, by giving liberty to the petitioners
to seek for recall of the order dated 05.01.2018
passed by the D.M. Pursuant to that liberty, the
petitioners filed recall application before the
D.M. This recall application was rejected by
impugned order dated 26.08.2019.

5. A perusal of the order dated 26.08.2019
would reveal that it was passed after considering
a report dated 14.06.2019 submitted by a team
comprising Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran
Khand-3, Meerut; Superintending Engineer
(Gramin), Vidyut Vitran; and Additional District
Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Meerut. The
said team conducted spot inspection and
prepared alignment map, as per which, seven
pillars were found standing on spot. It also found
that there was no drain (Naali) on spot and all
the pillars were erected on chak-road thereby
obviating violation of property rights of any
tenure holder. The report also indicated that the
poles that were put were at a safe distance from
the rooms established by the petitioners on plot
nos.1260 and 1261 to house the tube-well. In the
light of this report and after dealing with all the
arguments and material brought on record, the
recall application was rejected by a well
considered order.

6. Aggrieved with the order dated
26.08.2019,
the
petitioners
filed
Writ-C
No.32783 of 2019, which was disposed off, vide
order dated 15.10.2019, by giving liberty liberty
to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy of
revision available under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of
the Licensees Rules, 2006. Pursuant to that
liberty, the petitioners moved an application
before the Commission, which was registered as
Petition No.1530 of 2019. The Commission
dismissed the revision vide impugned order
dated 17.03.2021.

7. Assailing the impugned orders, the
learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
as follows:- (a) the D. M. had no jurisdiction to
pass a fresh order of the nature passed by him on
05.01.2018 as he had already taken a decision on
23.08.2016 and, as there existed no power of
review, the recall application of the petitioners
ought to have been allowed; (b) the Commission
did not afford opportunity of personal hearing to
the counsel for the petitioners therefore, the
order passed by the Commission is vitiated; and
(c) the Commission has failed to exercise its
jurisdiction by limiting the scope of revision to
examine only jurisdictional errors, at par with
those revisional courts that exercise powers
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Civil
Procedure Code when, otherwise, there existed
no such limitation on Commission's powers
under the Licensees Rules, 2006. The learned
counsel for the petitioners thus contended that
the order passed by the Commission deserves to
be set aside and the matter be remanded back to
the Commission for fresh adjudication.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that D.M.'s order dated
23.08.2016 altering the proposed route of the
line did not address the grievance of Jaipal
Singh
(the
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
respondents
6/1
to
6/3).
Under
the
circumstances, as the altered route affected the
right
of
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
respondents 6/1 to 6/3, he had a right to
approach the D.M. Thus, the order passed by the
D. M. dated 05.01.2018 cannot be said to be
without jurisdiction. Moreover, now, the recall
application of the petitioners has been rejected
by a speaking order, after considering the case of
both sides and taking into consideration the spot
inspection report which clearly indicated that the
proposed transmission line is not to pass over
land of any tenure holder but is to be mounted
on towers erected on chak-road. With regard to
the submission that the petitioners were not
given
opportunity
of
hearing
by
the
Commission,
it
was
submitted
that
due
opportunity of hearing was given by the
Commission. The order of the Commission
reflects that 27.10.2020 was the date fixed for
hearing but the counsel for the petitioners did
not appear. Further, paragraph 8 of the
impugned order passed by the Commission
reflects that the Commission has examined
submissions made by all the parties. With regard
to the contention that the Commission did not
properly examine the matter under the pretext
that its revisional jurisdiction is limited, it was
submitted that the Commission examined the
legality of the order impugned before it and its
approach did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

9. Having noticed the rival submissions,
before we proceed to assess the weight of the
respective submissions, it would be useful to
have a glance at the relevant provisions. The
Licensees Rules, 2006 have been framed in
exercise of the powers conferred upon the
Central Government under Clause (e) of subsection (2) of Section 176 read with sub-section
(2) of Section 67 of the Act, 2003. Sub-section
(2) of Section 67 empowers Appropriate
Government to frame rules in respect of carrying
out works by the licensee. Rule 3 of the
Licensees Rules, 2006 confers certain powers on
the licensee and also provides for a mechanism
to keep a check and control on exercise of those
powers. Rule 3 is extracted below:-

"3. Licensee to carry out works.--

(1) A licensee may--

(a) carry out works, lay down or place
any electric supply line or other works in,
through, or against, any building, or on, over or
under any land
whereon,
whereover
or
whereunder any electric supply-line or works
has not already been lawfully laid down or
placed by such licensee, with the prior consent
of the owner or occupier of any building or
land;

(b) fix any support of overhead line or
any stay or strut required for the purpose of
securing in position any support of an overhead
line on any building or land or having been so
fixed, may alter such support:

Provided that in case where the owner
or occupier of the building or land raises
objections in respect of works to be carried out
under this rule, the licensee shall obtain
permission
in
writing
from
the
District
Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or
any other officer authorised by the State
Government in this behalf, for carrying out the
works:

Provided further that if at any time,
the owner or occupier of any building or land on
which any works have been carried out or any
11 All. Ishwar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353
support of an overhead line, stay or strut has
been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District
Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or
the officer authorised may by order in writing
direct for any such works, support, stay or strut
to be removed or altered.

(2) When making an order under subrule (1), the District Magistrate or the
Commissioner of Police or the officer so
authorised, as the case may be, shall fix, after
considering the representations of the concerned
persons, if any, the amount of compensation or
of annual rent, or of both, which should in his
opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or
occupier.

(3) Every order made by a District
Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an
authorised officer under sub-rule (1) shall be
subject
to
revision
by
the
Appropriate
Commission.

(4) Nothing contained in this rule shall
effect the powers conferred upon any licensee
under section 164 of the Act."

Sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the
Act, 2003, provides the guiding principle for
exercise of those powers in following terms:-

"A licensee shall, in exercise of any
of the powers conferred by or under this
section and the rules made thereunder, cause
as little damage, detriment and inconvenience
as may be, and shall make full compensation
for any damage, detriment or inconvenience
caused by him or by any one employed by
him."

Likewise, Rule 10 of the Licensees
Rules, 2006 further guides exercise of that
power by providing as follows:-

"Avoidance of public nuisance,
environmental damage and unnecessary
damage to the public and private property
by such works.--The licensee shall, while
carrying out works, ensure that such works
do not cause public nuisance, environmental
damage and unnecessary damage to the
public or private property."

10. A combined reading of the extracted
provisions would reveal that though a licensee is
empowered to carry out works, lay down or
place any electric supply line or other works in,
through, or against, any building, or on, over or
under any land whereon, where over or where
under any electricity supply-line or works has
not already been lawfully laid down or placed by
such licensees, with the prior consent of the
owner or occupier of any building or land but, in
a case where the owner or occupier of the
building or land raises objections in respect of
works to be carried out under this rule, a
permission in writing is to be obtained by the
licensee from the District Magistrate or the
Commissioner of Police or any other officer
authorised by the State Government in this
behalf, for carrying out the works. In a case
where the works have been carried out and the
owner or occupier of any building or land on
which any works have been carried out shows
sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the
Commissioner of Police or the officer authorised
may by order in writing direct for any such
works, support, stay or strut to be removed or
altered. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Licensees
Rules, 2006 provides that every order made by a
District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police
or an authorised officer under sub-rule (1) shall
be subject to revision by the Appropriate
Commission. Thus, in a nutshell, Rule 3
contemplates two situations: (a) before the work
is carried out; and (b) after the work is carried
out. If before the work is carried out, the owner
or occupier of the building or land affected
raises objections in respect of works to be
carried out, a permission, in writing, from the
District Magistrate or the Commissioner of
Police or any other officer authorised by the
State Government in that behalf, for carrying out
the works, is to be obtained by the licensee.
Where the works have already been carried out
and the owner or occupier of any building or
land on which any works have been carried out
shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Commissioner of Police or the officer
authorised is empowered to direct by an order in
writing for any such works to be removed or
altered. When Rule 3 of the Licensees Rules,
2006 is read with sub-section (3) of Section 67
of the Act, 2003 and Rule 10 of the Licensee
Rules, 2006, it would suggest that though the
licensee is empowered to carry out the works
contemplated under the Act, 2003 as also the
Licensees Rules, 2006 framed thereunder but,
for carrying out such works, it must keep in
mind that minimal damage or inconvenience is
caused to the public or private person and their
property. What is important to note is that the
Act, 2003 as well as Licensees Rules, 2006 both
mandate that the licensee while carrying out the
works must avoid unnecessary damage to the
public or private property. However, if damage
is caused or the work carried out is to the
detriment or inconvenience of any party, the
licensee would have to fully compensate the
person concerned for any damage, detriment or
inconvenience caused by him or any one
employed by him.

11. Seen in the light of the legal position
noticed above, in the instant case, the work
proposed by the licensee was to be carried out
by erecting poles on the chak-road adjoining the
fields of various tenure holders and the
transmission line was to be mounted on those
poles that were to be placed on chak-road.
Meaning thereby that the Licensee took pains to
avoid damage to any private property. The
petitioners, however, raised objection because
one of the electricity poles was in close
proximity to the room housing the tube-well of
the petitioners. This objection was rejected by
the M.D. of the Nigam. But, as this issue ought
to have been decided by the D.M., on a
challenge laid by the petitioners to the order of
the M.D., the writ court gave liberty to the
petitioners to file objections before the D.M.
under the second proviso to Rule 3(b) of the
Licensees Rules, 2006. Pursuant thereto, the
District
Magistrate
on
objection
of
the
petitioners altered the course of the proposed
line so as to shift it from the chak-road into the
fields of few tenure holders. Aggrieved
therewith, some of the tenure holders filed a
separate writ petition before this Court, which
was disposed off by giving them liberty to file
their objection before the D.M. Whereafter, the
D.M. passed the order dated 05.01.2018
restoring the same position that was obtaining
from before.

12. The contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that once the D.M. had passed
his order on the objection of the petitioners, the
order could not have been reviewed/altered is
misconceived for the simple reason that Rule 3
of
the
Licensee
Rules,
2006
envisage
consideration of objections at two stages one
before the work is carried out and the other after
the work is carried out. When the objection of
the petitioners was first decided by the M.D., the
other tenure holders were not affected. But,
when the proposed work was altered by the
decision of the D.M., they became affected and,
therefore, they had a right to raise an objection
before the D. M., which the D.M. was required
to consider. In view of the above, the claim of
the petitioners that the D.M. held no jurisdiction
to pass a fresh order, as it amounted to review of
his earlier order, is misconceived and is not in
consonance with the provisions of Rules. More
so, when it does not appear from the earlier
order of the D.M. that he had considered the
grievances of those tenure holders who were to
get affected by the alteration in the route.
Further, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners would suffer
on account of close proximity of the proposed
transmission line to the room housing the tubewell of the petitioners is not acceptable because
the licensee, while carrying out the works, is
expected to ensure that a safe distance is
maintained
from
the
private
property.
Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the
11 All. Ishwar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
proposed line is to be mounted on poles planted
on chak-road and not over private land. It has
also come on record that the towers to be erected
are of sufficient height enabling maintenance of
minimum safe distance from any structure
nearby.
Thus,
the
over
all
balance
of
convenience lies in placement of the towers on
chak-road than over private land. If, thereafter,
the petitioners suffer any loss or damage, they
can always seek for compensation. We,
therefore, find no merit in the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the order
of the D.M. was without jurisdiction and that it
was prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.

13. With respect to the second submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
Commission did not accord proper hearing to the
petitioners as would be clear from paragraph 7
of the order of the Commission, suffice it to say
that paragraph 7 of the order of the Commission
records that the counsel for the petitioners had
filed an application dated 03.11.2020 stating
therein that, by mistake, she had noted the date
of hearing on the revision as 28.10.2020 in place
of 27.10.2020 and so she could not attend the
proceedings of the revision on 27.10.2020. The
paragraph proceeds to record that the case
proceeded ex-parte on 27.10.2020 and the
judgment was reserved and therefore the counsel
for the revisionist could not be heard personally
though,
later,
on
04.11.2020,
written
submissions were filed by the revisionist. The
order though notices that written arguments
were furnished after the judgment was reserved
but states, in paragraph 7, that written
submissions
were
not
considered.
But,
immediately thereafter, in paragraph 8, it is
stated as follows:- "The Commission has
examined the submission made by all the parties
and perused the records. The first and foremost
argument taken by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the respondent no.2 the District
Magistrate was not empowered to change, alter
or modify the line route/order......." This
observation
clearly
demonstrates
that
the
Commission did apply its mind to the
submissions made and grounds taken by the
revisionist and thereafter it proceeded to dismiss
the revision as being devoid of merit. No doubt,
the observation made in paragraph 7 of the order
passed by the Commission may suggest that the
petitioner was not heard and that his arguments
were not considered but from the following
paragraphs it appears that the arguments were
noticed and considered. Therefore, on this
technical fault in the order, the whole order
would not become vulnerable. In view of the
above, the second submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners also deserves
rejection and is, accordingly, rejected.

14. Coming to the third contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
Commission failed to examine the factual
aspects of the case by placing on itself
unwarranted restriction on the scope of its
revisional power, it be observed that, no doubt,
the revisional powers of the Commission are not
limited by the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure but the term revision by itself limits
the scope of consideration and it cannot be
equated to appellate power. In the case of
Chandrika Prasad (dead) through LRS and
others Vs. Umesh Kumar Verma and others:
(2002) 1 SCC 531, while dealing with the
revisional power under the proviso to Section 14
(8) of the Bihar Rent Act, the Apex Court, in
paragraph 7, made certain general observations
regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
They are extracted below:-

"...........The scope of the revisional
jurisdiction depends on the language of the
statute. Though, revisional jurisdiction is only a
part of the appellate jurisdiction, it cannot be
equated with that of full-fledged appeal."

15. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance
Law Lexicon, Fourth Edition, it has been
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provided that there is a distinction between an
appeal and a revision. Whereas an appeal
confers statutory vested right on the litigant
which accrues the moment the proceedings in
question are instituted, the right of revision is
merely a discretionary power to be exercised by
the
revisional
court
according
to
the
circumstances of the case or exigencies of the
situation. A person cannot as a matter of right
claim the proceedings to be revised.

16. Having noticed the import of the term
"revision", we may now proceed to examine the
provisions of the Licensees Rules, 2006 that
enables
a
revision
by
the
Appropriate
Commission. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the
Licensees Rules, 2006 is the enabling provision
which provides that every order made by a
District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police
or an authorised officer under sub-rule (1) shall
be subject to revision by the Appropriate
Commission. Rule 15 of the Licensees Rules,
2006 provides that when a matter is brought to
the Appropriate Commission for determination
under these Rules, the matter shall be
determined by the Appropriate Commission
within a period of 30 days after hearing the
parties concerned. The Rules, 2006 do not
specifically provide that the person aggrieved
shall have a right to file a revision before the
Commission. What is provided is that the order
passed by the District Magistrate or a
Commissioner of Police or an authorised officer
under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by
the Appropriate Commission. Rule 15 provides
the mode and manner in which the revision is to
be decided once the matter is brought before the
Appropriate Commission. Though the scope of
revision is not defined by the provisions of the
Licensees Rules, 2006 or the Act, 2003 but there
is nothing shown to us which may suggest that
the scope of revision is equivalent to that of an
appeal. Having said that, we may observe that
though the revisional powers cannot be equated
to that of an appellate authority in a full-fledged
appeal but, the revisional powers of the
Commission can be utilised to scrutinise
whether the subordinate authority has: (a) acted
within its jurisdiction and in consonance with
the provisions of the statute and the rules framed
thereunder; (b) conducted its proceeding in
accordance with the procedure prescribed and
the principles of natural justice; and (c) rendered
a perverse finding. Where, upon such scrutiny, it
is found that the subordinate authority has not
acted within its jurisdiction or in consonance
with the provisions of the statute and the rules
framed thereunder or has acted in flagrant
violation of the procedure prescribed or the
principles of natural justice or has rendered
finding(s) that is/are perverse, the Commission,
in exercise of its revisional power, may interfere
and pass appropriate orders.

17. In the instant case, we find from the
record and from the orders passed by the District
Magistrate that an effort was there on the part of
the licensee to cause minimum damage to
private property and for that end the electricity
poles were placed on chak-road by maintaining a
safe distance from the adjoining property, which
is in consonance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 67 of the Act, 2003 and
Rule 10 of the Licensees Rules, 2006 and the
route was finalized after according consideration
to the grievances of all the persons likely to be
affected. Accordingly, as we find that the
licensee has taken pains to install towers over
chak-road and not over the fields/property of the
petitioners, such an exercise of the licensee
cannot be questioned by the petitioners. If the
petitioners still have any grievance, they may
raise a claim for compensation.

18. Before parting, we may observe that in
the instant case the proposal for transmission of
electricity was mooted in the year 2015. Now,
we are in the year 2021 and the matter is still
under litigation. Electricity is a basic human
need and its supply wherever possible and
11 All. M/s SPML Infra Ltd., New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357
permissible should not be delayed. Therefore,
whenever a dispute arises in respect of the route
of an electricity line the same should be
addressed with utmost expedition so that the
supply of electricity is not indefinitely stalled.
Thus, where objections are considered and
rejected, unless there is perversity in its
consideration and rejection, ordinarily, such a
decision
should
not
be
interfered
with,
particularly, where the affected party has been
heard before the decision. More so, because the
person affected can be monetarily compensated.

19. Accordingly, for all the reasons
recorded above, we do not find any merit in this
petition and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

Writ-C No. 21099 of 2021

M/s SPML Infra Ltd., New Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raghav Dev Garg, Sri Anurag Khanna (Senior
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh

A. Civil Law - Auction - Tender process -
Requirement
of
past
experience
-
Concealment of the fact regarding termination
of earlier work for poor performance - Effect -
Purpose of past experience explained - Held,
the
requirement
of
furnishing
proof
of
experience is to judge capability of the bidder
on two aspects. Firstly, the purpose is to
ascertain
whether
the
bidder
had
the
capability
to
successfully
undertake
and
complete the work under the contract in terms
of its quality. It is for the said reason that
previous experience should be in relation to
'completed work'. Second aspect is to make
qualitative assessment - whether the bidder
had experience of undertaking work of such
magnitude - High Court found no illegality in
the decision of the respondents in declaring
the petitioner as disqualified to participate in
the tender process. (Para 10)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Raghav Dev
Garg for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent 1 and Sri Kaushalendra
Nath Singh for respondents 2 and 4. With their
consent, the writ petition is being disposed of
finally, without inviting a formal counter
affidavit.

2.

The
petitioner,
an
incorporated
Company, has preferred the instant writ petition
being aggrieved by a communication dated
23.6.2021, issued by the fourth respondent,
informing the petitioner-Company that it stands
disqualified and precluded from participating in
the tender process in future also, as it had
furnished wrong information relating to its
previous experience. The petitioner has also
prayed for a mandamus directing the second
respondent to issue LOI, execute agreement and
work orders in its favour, being the lowest
bidder (L1).

3. The second respondent, i.e. New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA),
issued a notice on 24.3.2021, inviting tenders for
providing and fixing smart water meters with set
up of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)