CC/10/2023

ORDRE NO.10

DATED:19.06.2023

                             Today is fixed for order in respect of petition dated 11.04.2023.                          

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

                             Record is put up for order.

                             Perused the petition dated 11.04.2023 filed by the OP.

                             He alleged in the said petition the Telegraph Authority has been authorised by Telegraph Act, 1885 to place and maintains Telegraph lines and posts. He further stated that u/s 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Central Government being “Appropriate Government” has conferred the powers of “Telegraph Authority” upon the OP.

                             He further contended  that u/s 16 of the Telegraph Act, if any person aggrieved then he can approach  before the District judge being jurisdiction over the area.

                             He further stated that  complainant has no jurisdiction  to lodge this case before this Commission.

                             At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that they being a consumer filed this case before this Commission against the OP and the present case is maintainable  the OP.

                             In reply Ld. Advocate for the OP argued before this Commission that the present case is maintainable before this Commission in view of section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 and section 10 of Telegraph Act, 1885.

                             In this context, we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court passed in WPA 996/2021.

                             We have also carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court passed in WP No.4321 of 2016.

                             We have also carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble High Court reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143.

                             On perusal of WPA 996 of 2021, we find that one H. Rahaman Biswas and others filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta. Hon’ble Court after considering the section 164 of 2003 Act, Rule 3(1) (a) of 2006 Rules dismissed the said writ petition. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the WP NO.4327 of 2016 held if the petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation to be paid by the authority he could definitely approach before the Ld. District Judge. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2017) 5 SCC page 143 held:-

If any dispute arises  as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportion in which the persons interested  are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing  parties have in writing  admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been  determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving  notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled  to share in it.

          In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that the person case is not maintainable before this Commission.

          Hence,

                             It is

                                                          Ordered that the present case be and the same is vide no.CC/10/2023 is dismissed on contest has not maintainable but without any order as to costs.

          The case is thus disposed off.

                             MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT