The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered on two counts firstly the lineman has taken illegal gratification at about Rs.14,400/- for installation of new transformer at village Mahadevpur Block Ramchandrapur District Balrampur (C.G.) and the other news published in the same newspaper relating to death of four cattles due to electricution and the incidents which took place earlier.
In compliance of the order passed by the Court on 12.04.2024, two separate reply and affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents for two separate news items. The operative portions of the First reply read as follows :
“…..
2. That, so far as the first news/ground is concerned one ……. has taken the amount of Rs.300/- from the villagers instead of the employees belonging to the department of answering respondent and to that effect a written complaint was made before jurisdictional police authorities on dated 09.04.24 whereby the concerning police authority i.e. P.S. Trikunda District Balrampur has after examination of the complaint and recording the statement of the responsible officer as well as the concerned person ……. has closed the complaint under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. by stating that matter is relating to transaction of money therefore it would be proper to approach the jurisdictional court…..
3. That, on the basis of complaint made by the Department of answering respondent the concerning police authorities has recorded the statement of the witnesses, whereby …. has admitted that he has received the amount for the purposes of changing new transformer and after lodging the complaint by the Department of answering respondent he has returned the entire amount to the persons from whom he had received the amount.
4. That, as per the supply code of the department in urban area if any transformer is non working then within a period of three days same has to be replaced and in rural area the prescribed period for replacing the transformer is seven days, the answering respondents have replaced the transformer after receiving the complaint within the prescribed period i.e. within seven days on 09.04.2024, therefore no negligence has been committed on the part of answering respondent and to that effect a panchnama has been made and gram panchayat Mahadevpur has already certified the replacement of the transformer on dated 09.04.2024……
5. That, the answering respondents hereby prays unconditional apology if any mistake has been committed on their part and ready and willing to comply the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court.
6. That, in view of the above submissions and documents filed by the answering respondent, there is no negligence on the part of answering respondents.”
Second Reply;-
“….
2. That, as per the newsclipping the similar incidents has taken place earlier also but as per knowledge of the answering respondent no such incident has ever taken place except death of one person for which no claim has been ever made till date.
3. That, the electric line of 11 KV at Loharsi feeder runs for approx. 25 to 30 kms in the forest area and due to heavy storm the insulator was blast due to which the electric wire fell down and the cattles got electricuted and died. ….
4. That, when this fact came into the knowledge of answering respondents they immediately proceeded for disbursement of the just and proper compensation as per the guidelines of the department and has issued cheques in favour of the owners of cattles and the owners have already given receipts for the same. ….
5. That, this is the responsibility of the answering respondents to maintain electricity lines after periodical interval and the answering respondents have time and again complied their part as the maintenance took place on dated 05.01.22, 05.05.23, 08.05.23 and 28.10.23, therefore no negligence on the part of answering respondents has been done.
6. That, the answering respondents hereby prays unconditional apology if any mistake has been committed on their part and ready and willing to comply the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court.
7. That, in view of the above submissions and documents filed by the answering respondent, there is no negligence on the part of answering respondents.”
In the light of reply supported by affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput disposed of the Petition.