IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.9772 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 PMR Bangaru Subbammal Educational Trust rep. By its Trustee Smt.M.Sangamitra Plot No.2936, 15th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. ... Petitioner Versus 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Chairman, 144/800, NPKKR Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144/800, NPKKR Maligai, Anna Salai 600 002. 3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, TLC/TNEB, Guindy, Chennai. 4.The Assistant Engineer, TLC/TNEB, Guindy, Chennai .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking any steps to erect High Tension Wire Towers in the petitioners' land measuring an extent of about 11 acres 67 cents or Hectare 4.72.50 in Chevvapettai Panchayat having Survey Nos.138/1B1,1B2A,2A,2B,3,7;139/1,2B,3,4,5,6B;140/1A,1b,2a,2b,2c,2d, & 141/2 & 3 in Patta No.1796 for connecting the two electric High Tension towers situate at Aithur Village and Thiruvur Village in Tiruvallur District without exploring whether any alternate route is available for the said purpose involving lesser cost, and in the absence of an alternate route, consequently direct the respondents to conduct discussions with the petitioner to determine a mutually convenient location in the said land of the petitioner for the construction of any High Tension Electric Tower for connecting the two electric High Tension towers situate at Aithur Village and Thiruvarur Village. For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalani Chidambaram, SC for Mr.V.Vaithiyalingam For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran O R D E R
This writ petition seeking mandamus has been filed by the petitioner institution stating that the High Tension Wire Towers which are to be erected in S.Nos. 138/1B1, 1B2A, 2A, 2B, 3, 7;139/1, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6B;140/1A, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, & 141/2 & 3 in Patta No.1796 belonging to the petitioner is causing great prejudice to the institution and the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the respondents to explore the possibility of alternative route which may involve lesser cost.
2.In this regard, the petitioner had already submitted a representation on 05.04.2011. In support of his representation a sketch has been submitted. Since no action has been taken, this writ petition has been filed on 11.04.2011. However, when the writ petition was heard after putting the respondents on notice and after hearing Mr. A.Selvendran, counsel appearing for the respondents, it is informed to this Court that the Superintending Engineer has considered the representation dated 05.04.2011 and declined to take the alternative route suggested by the petitioner by proceedings No.SE/GCC-II/CNI/HD/F.JYOTI/D./159/2011 dated 12.04.2011 and the same has been communicated to the petitioner on 18.04.2011.
3.Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents should have given the petitioner an opportunity to explain the representation and the basis on which they have suggested the alternative route based on the sketch which they have submitted. Petitioner is willing to provide alternative routes in the said property so that the High Tension Wire can be set up with least disturbance to the institution and engineering college and it can be erected at a lesser cost. She relied upon the single Judge decision of this Court in W.P.No.36566 of 2007 dated 28.01.2008 wherein, it has been observed that authorities can inform the owner or the occupant before taking action for erection of the tower so that the alignment of the line can be settled without resistance or obstruction by mutual understanding or discussion. Placing reliance on this decision she pleaded that a proper opportunity should be given to the petitioner to establish their stand as above.
4.Having considered the order passed by the Superintending Engineer this Court is of the view that a mandamus as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the catena of decisions wherein it has been clearly held that prior notice is not required for the purpose of laying High Tension Wires. However, considering the plea of Smt.Nalani Chidambar, Senior Counsel, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a further representation with regard to the alternative route and the petitioner is entitled to represent before the Superintending Engineer the alternative route suggested. The authorities are at liberty to take appropriate decision on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.
5.With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Smi
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144/800, NPKKR Maligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144/800, NPKKR Maligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
TLC/TNEB, Guindy, Chennai.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
TLC/TNEB, Guindy,
Chennai