- (1.) THIS writ petition is by some of the residents of Mohalla Hariharbari in Deoghar. They have approached this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government, the concerned department of the Government, the State Electricity Board, the Revenue Officials of the Government and the Deoghar Municipality, not to install an Electrical Sub -grid Station of 33/11 KVA on a piece of land said to be in the colony in which the petitioners have allotments of plots. According to the petitioners, the plot of land, wherein the sub -grid station is sought to be established is ear -marked as a park when the plan of the colony was made and the municipality had no right to make over that plot of land to the Bihar State Electricity Board for establishing a sub -station. There is also a challenge to the entitlement of the authority concerned to make over that plot of land to the Electricity Board.
(2.) COUNTER affidavits have been filed by the various respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the Electricity Board, it is submitted that the land was made over to it in the appropriate manner and the relevant permission and sanction have been obtained by the Electricity Board, that the land was never ear -marked as a park while laying out Hariharbari colony, that the petitioners themselves are encroachers into the lands that were left in common in the colony, that the writ petition was not filed in public interest but it Was against public interest since it was absolutely essential to have a sub -grid station nearer Vaidyanath Temple and the Shiv Ganga pond used by the pilgrims and the present sub -station was too far away leading to the improper and interrupted supply of power and public interest would not be subserved by entertaining this writ petition or granting the prayer therein. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners disputing these assertions and insisting that the land was set apart as a park while planning the colony. Counter affidavits filed by other respondents are also to the effect that the land was not set apart as park land while planning the colony and the petitioners have no right over it and no right to question the user of the land for the public purpose of establishing a sub -station. The municipality has also asserted that it was the owner of the land and there was no right in the petitioners to interfere with its right to transfer the plot of land to the electricity board for such a public purpose. Annexure 1 relied on by the petitioners to make out a case that there were three fountains in the plot which was said to be handed over to the Electricity Board for establishing the sub -station is not shown to be authentic. Nor it does show that the land was ear -marked as a park when the plan of the colony or the lay out of the colony was made. There is nothing to show that the land in question was earmarked as a part to be used by the members of the colony. In such a situation, it is difficult to interfere at the instance of the petitioners especially in the context of the various disputed facts that have emerged from the pleadings in the case. There is also the fact that prima facie it cannot be said that the establishment of the sub -station is not in public interest or it is not necessary. After all, it is well known that to make proper supply of electrical energy at proper voltage uninterruptedly, establishment of a sub -station is necessary. Therefore, in establishing the sub -station an element of public interest is involved. In such a situation, unless the petitioners are able to make out that any of their rights are violated or any other public interest is being effected, this Court may not be in a position to interfere. In that context, we would like to observe once more that there are a number of disputed facts in this case but the basic thing is that the petitioners have not been able to establish that the land in. question was ear -marked as a park in the lay out plan of the colony.
(3.) OF course, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the municipality ought to have produced the lay out plan. But we find that no attempt was made by the petitioners to get an authenticated copy of the plan from the Municipality and produce it before this Court nor any attempt was made to cite the Municipality or the Electricity Board, to produce the relevant plan. Therefore, it is also difficult to accept the argument that an adverse inference should be drawn against the municipality. In such a situation, we are satisfied that it would not be appropriate to prevent the establishment of the sub -station which is meant for the benefit of the consumers at large in that part of Deoghar. We may also take note of the fact that Deoghar is one of the important pilgrim centers in the State and it is frequented by the pilgrims through out the year especially in the month of Shravan when pilgrims folk in lakhs every day. When the municipality says that it has become necessary to provide them with proper supply of power and for that the establishment of the Sub -station is necessary, that cannot be brushed aside while entertaining a public interest litigation.;