Madras High Court
K. Varadharajan vs The Chairman on 21 November, 2014
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 24-09-2014
Pronounced on : 21 -11-2014
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
Writ Petition No. 27121 of 2013
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2013
K. Varadharajan .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Salai, Nandanam
Madras
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector
Tiruppur District
Tiruppur
3. The Superintending Engineer
General Construction Circle
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Tatabad, Coimbatore
4. The Executive Engineer (TLC)
General Construction Circle Compound
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Tatabad, Coimbatore .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.20100/2012/J1 dated 03.09.2013 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently forbear the respondents from laying towers for high tension wires at Petitioner's lands in S.F. Nos. 137/1C, 2C, 144/1A1, 1A2, 197, 125/1C, 138/3, 139/1, 118/9, 118/10B, 119, 144/1B, 144/3, 196/1, 196/3A, 196/3B, 198/2, 198/4, 201/3 and 137/1B, 137/2B at Ramanathapuram Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Raghavachari
for Mr. MA.P. Thangavel
For Respondents : Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. S.K. Rameshwar
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.20100/2012/J1 dated 03.09.2013 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further with the erection of high tension electrical towers over his lands.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the lands comprised in various survey numbers morefully set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that already, the third respondent has earmarked the lands in S.F. Nos. 203, 202, 134 and 130 for laying the line for heavy tension electrical wires. However, the respondents, under the influence of some vested interested persons, deviated the original plan which resulted in the erection of high tension electric wires over and above the properties which are subject matter of this writ petition. According to the petitioner, he was informed during May 2012 that the respondents are going to lay towers for heavy tension electrical wires in his lands. The petitioner therefore submitted an objection on 03.05.2012 to the respondents. Notwithstanding such objections, the officials of the respondents visited the lands of the petitioner on 24.09.2012 and caused an inspection. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 33187 of 2012 which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider the objections raised by the petitioner after conducting appropriate enquiry in accordance with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, within a period of four weeks. In the meantime, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the second repsondent, without considering any of the objections raised, has passed an order dated 03.06.2013 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Challenging the order dated 03.06.2013, the petitioner has filed WP No. 16863 of 2013 before this Court. By order dated 18.07.2013, this Court disposed of WP No. 16863 of 2013 by which the order dated 03.06.2013 of the second respondent was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was also granted liberty to produce additional documents, if any, to substantiate his contention. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed the present order dated 25.09.2013 once again rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner for alignment of the route to earmark towers.
3. The respondents have refuted the contentions raised by the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the order dated 25.09.2013 has been passed by the second respondent after following all the procedures contemplated under law and after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his submission, including a personal hearing. According to the respondents, the administrative sanction for erecting 230 KV SC line on DC towers from Arasur 400/230 KV SS to Karamadai 230 KV SS has been accorded during 2005 vide order dated 07.12.2005. Such an administrative sanction has been given prior to the sale deeds registered in the Sub-Registrar, Avinashi, except document No. 5464 of 2014. Prior to implementing the project, the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation has given advertisement through newspapers in one issue of English News Paper Newspaper Sunday Express on 22.05.2011 and in one issue of Tamil Daily Dinathanthi on 22.05.2011. The substance of the project was also published in the gazzette on 13.07.2011. According to the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that he has obtained no objection for forming layout from the President of the Village Panchayat on 27.07.2011 and from the Tahsildar, Avinashi on 03.02.2012 will not have any bearing on implementation of the project especially when they were obtained after effecting the advertisements mentioned above. Therefore, the present contention of the petitioner that the lands have been approved and several purchasers have paid advance for buying the lands cannot be countenanced. Further, the averment that the petitioner has executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Block Development Officer will not have any impediment for execution of the project especially when such gift deed was executed only on 09.05.2012. It is further contended that the respondents did not carry out any foundation work with respect to tower Nos. 62 & 63 in the above said lands of the petitioner in Ramanathapuram Village, Avinashi and as per Electricity Act, only compensation can be given for the damaged crops during execution of work and no compensation can be paid for the acquisition of land. According to the respondents, the total length of line is 39.00 km with 169 towers out of which for 160 towers concreting have been completed, 142 towers have been erected. The respondents have spent a huge sum of Rs.25 crores for completion of this project which is intended to serve the public at large. According to the respondents, due to delay in energisation of this 230 KV sub station, transmission of nearly 200 MV power from central grid will be affected, which in turn will have an adverse effect in effecting power supply to public at large. In any event, the line proposed to pass through the land of the petitioner will not in any manner affect his cultivation. The guidelines for erecting the high tension tower has been strictly adhered to. The District Magistrate/District Collector, Tirupur has also carried out an enquiry on 17.05.2013 and issued entry permission to carry out the work. The respondents also sought police protection to carry out the foundation work in the tower Nos. 62 and 63 on 5th and 6th October 2013. Therefore, the pendency of the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is causing irreparable loss to the department in implementing the project and therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the order dated 25.09.2013 has been passed without application of mind. The order dated 25.09.2013 is replica to the earlier order dated 03.06.2013 which was subjected to challenge before this Court in the earlier writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the original route proposed by the respondents have been deviated or altered for the reasons best known to them and inspite of directions issued by this Court to consider the said aspect, the respondents failed and neglected to take note of it.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi in Petition No. 248 of 2009 wherein the Commission had advised the Central Government for incorporating suitable conditions in the approval under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 regarding the procedure to be adopted for disposing of the objections of the owners of the land/buildings while erecting overhead lines which are dedicated transmission lines. Relying on the above said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there shoulod have been prior approval or permission obtained from the competent authority before issuing the "enter upon" permission and such permission granted under Section 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act by the respondents is not in accordance with law. Further, Section 68 of the Act contemplates that the appropriate government may, by rules made in this behalf, delegate the powers for carrying out over head line tower works and such power cannot be delegated by any one else especially without prior permission from the appropriate government. Section 68 (2) (c) of the Indian Electricity Act prescribe the period of notice to be given prior to carrying out the works, but such a notice has not been given in this case. According to the counsel for the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, application has been made by the petitioner and it was replied that the survey number is indicated in the earlier proceedings relating to the original route earmarked and for the deviated route, the survey number is not at all mentioned.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that even in the reply given under the Right to Information Act on 18.04.2012, it was only stated that the plan with survey number has not been prepared at any stage and only village name is mentioned in the gazzette notification and daily paper. It was further stated that the survey has been carried out during March 2009 and it was approved by the Chief Engineer, Transmission, Chennai during November 2010. As per G.O. Ms. No.15, Energy (C-3) Department dated 23.02.2012, it was ordered that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003, the Governor of Tamil Nadu for the placing of electric lines for transmission of electricity, hereby confers upon the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited and Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. By virtue of such Government Order, the Corporation derives powers for placing electric supply lines that a telegraph authority may possess under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the plea of the petitioner that the action of the respondents is without authority of law cannot be accepted. The learned Additional Advocate General further brought to the notice of this Court that one S. Ramasamy has filed a suit in O.S. No. 203 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Avinashi contending that he is the owner of the lands comprised in various survey numbers mentioned in the plaint. The said suit was filed against the petitioner herein and others. In the said suit, it was contended that the petitioner herein has illegally levelled the fields and formed a layout without approval from the Director of Town and Country Plannning and the said layout has not been technically approved by the planning authorities. The Plaintiff therein has also questioned the manner in which layout approval has been given to the petitioner by impleading the District Collector and revenue authorities in the suit. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the very right of the petitioner herein is questioned in the suit in O.S. No. 203 of 2012. In any event, the project is being stalled unnecessarily by the petitioner by filing successive writ petitions before this Court.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the latest decision of this Court in WP No. 16799 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013 (D. Rajendran and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Head Office, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2 and another) wherein this Court, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court, held that if the intention of the legislature is to seek for consent or permission from every owner and if the right of such owner has to be recognised, in terms of Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, by resistance/obstruction, then the execution of any work or project would be stopped at every stage. Further, Section 10 of the Telegraph Act indicates that a legal sanction to a telegraph authority to commit trespass on any private property, subject to the condition that while committing any trespas, the telegraph authority is under an obligation to cause as little damage as possible and shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Act. Relying on the aforesaid decision of this Court, the learned Additional Advocate General would point out that in exercise of the powrs under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the telegraph authority shall commit trespass on any private property, subject to the condition that while doing so, they are under an obligation to ensure that minimal damages is caused meaning thereby a power is vested with the telegraph authority to commit trespass subject to certain conditions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities under the telegraphic Act has no power at all to commit trespass and therefore the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
8. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the power of the electricity authority to trespass into the lands of the private person can be interfered with by this Court at the instance of the petitioner and whether the officials of the respondents have deviated from the original plan to lay high tension electrical towers with any malafide intention.
9. The petitioner has approached this Court twice before filing the present writ petition contending that the respondents have not proceeded in accordance with law before deciding to lay electricity lines over his lands. This Court also interfered with the action of the respondents twice and ultimately directed the respondents to consider the objection of the petitioner and pass orders afresh. Thereafter, the present order, which is under challenge, has been passed by the second respondent.
10. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the second respondent considered each and every one of the objections raised by the petitioner and ultimately rejected the objections. In those circumstance, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been mechanically passed cannot be countenanced. The order which is impugned in this writ petition is a speaking order in which the second respondent considered each and every one of the objections raised by the petitioner.
11. As regards the requirement to obtain prior permission from the competent authority before trespassing into the lands of the petiitoner, the learned Additional Government Pleader placed reliance upon G.O. Ms. No.15, Energy (C-3) Department dated 23.02.2012 wherein it was ordered that the Governor of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003, delegated the powers for placing electric lines for transmission of electricity, in favour of Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited and Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited. Therefore, by virtue of this Government Order, the respondent derives powers for placing electric supply lines and such power was conferred upon the respondents by the competent authority being the Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents in attempting to lay electricity lines is without authority of law or prior permission was not granted in favour of the respondents. Therefore, this argument of the counsel for the petitioner is also liable to be rejected.
12. The various other issues raised on behalf of the petitioner has already been decided by this Court in the unreported decision in WP No. 16799 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013 (D. Rajendran and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Head Office, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2 and another). The relevant portion of the order can usefully be extracted hereunder:-
"71. If the intention of the Legislature is to seek for consent or permission from every owner and if the right of such owner has to be recognised, in terms of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, by resistance/obstruction, then the execution of any work or project, would be stopped at every stage. Needless to state that the execution of works, involving erection of towers and connection of overhead lines, are done, only after a detailed field study, by identifying a feasible route of the proposed transmission line and by selecting a suitable corridors, by avoiding densely populated residential areas, span length, the angle of deviation, the extent of damage, likely to be caused, while erecting towers, maintenance cost of electric lines and towers and more particularly, the public interest in providing electricity to a large section of people and industrial establishments, etc.
72. If the authorities have to recognize the right of obstruction or resistance, in terms of Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, then the moment, any notification is published, or the persons, likelyto be affected, as the knowledge of the commencement of any work, would immediately resist or obstruct the work and may even seek for re-location or re-alignment or removal of towers and plants, erected by the public officer or licensee or any other person, engaged in the business of supplying electricity.
73. In a given case, if the project involves huge expenditure, erection of many towers at various places and when such project involves, greater public interest, then even a single owner, under the pretext of making objections/resistance, could stall the whole process of execution of the project. When tress-pass into the property is legally authorised with the payment of compensation to the land owner, prior consent is required.
74. Part III of the Telegraph Act, 1885, deals with Power to Place Telegraph Lines and Posts" and there are other provisions applicable to all property. As seen in the foregoing paragraphs, powers conferred under the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and towers are traceable in Sections 10, 11 and 14 of the abovesaid Act and by virtue of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is conferred on any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, for placing of telegraph lines and posts, on any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under that Act for placing of electrical plants and electric lines, in terms of Section 2(20) of the Act.
75. The authorisation, in terms of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, by which, the telegraph authority to commit trespass on any private property, subject to the condition that while committing any trespass, the telegraph authority is under an obligation to cause as little damage as possible with a guarantee for payment of compensation for the owner of the land or the persons interested, cannot and should not be construed to be subject to Sections 16 and 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, limiting the absolute powers of the telegraph authority to commit trespass for the purpose of enforcement of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by which, the authorised officer or licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, is empowered to exercise all the powers, for the purpose of placing electrical plant, line, erection of towers, conductors, poles, etc.
76. If prior consent and opportunity has to be given to every owner of the land or person interested, throughout the route, by which, the electrical line is proposed to be drawn, in connection with the towers, then as stated supra, there would be a request for re-location, objections, resistance at every stage of work. The intention of the Legislature, is to provide electricity, in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and when the purpose of the Act, is to provide basic amenity of electricity to the public at large and if every objection/resistance is entertained under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, then it would render Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, meaningless, thereby, the power conferred on the telegraph authority to trespass into the property, subject to causing as little damage as possible, with an assurance of payment of compensation to the damage, if any, would be redundant and if Section 16(1) of the Act, is given weightage than Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, then the very purpose of the Electricity Act, 2003, would be defeated.
77. The Electricity Act, 2003, is a progressive enactment with a specific purpose of providing electricity to a large number of people, across the country, to promote industrial and sustainable development in all walks of life. Right of a land owner to possess and enjoy the property, though recognised as a Constitutional Right, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right necessarily yield Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which strives to achieve the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
78. On the aspect that as per Section 185 (2) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, provisions contained in Section 12 (2) of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910 under which the consent of the owner or occupier was essential, shall have effect until the Rules are made under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, this Court made it clear that such consent of the owner or occupier was necessary only in the absence of an order under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Having taken into consideration all the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the legal position has been explained that on an analysis of Section 67 and section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is apparent that whenever an order is passed by the appropriate Government, in exercise of the powers under Section 164 of the electricity Act, 2003, for placing of electric lines for the transmission of electricity, conferring upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to the placing of telegraphic lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established by the Government, such public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity stands in the same position as regards the exercise of power as the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph act, 1885. However, in the absence of such an order under Section 164 of the Electricity act, 2003, if a licensee i.e., a person who has been granted a licence to transmit electricity or to distribute electricity under the Act, proposes to place electric lines, electric plant or other works necessary for transmission or supply of electricity, Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 comes into operation and consequently it is mandatory to obtain the consent of the concerned owner or occupier as required under Section 12 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
79. The provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 made under Section 67 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 are in pari materia to Section 12 of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Admittedly the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 are applicable only where the works have been taken up by the licensee under Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, as well as the rules made under Section 67 (2) govern the field only in the absence of an order under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In a case where an order is passed by the appropriate government in exercise of the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the licensee is competent to exercise the powers which the Telegraph Authority possessed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to the placing of telegraphic lines and posts for the purpose of a telegraph established by the Government. Since the powers under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, can be exercised without acquiring the land in question, once an order is passed by the appropriate government under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity shall be entitled to proceed with the works of placing the electric lines without acquiring the land in question. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, a notification has been issued invoking Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, Section 67 (1) of the said Act or the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 made under Section 67 (2) are not attracted and as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the respondents can proceed with the placing of electric supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of the electricity on or over the lands of the petitioner without acquiring the same and there is also no need to obtain his consent.
80. Legislature has conferred powers on the appropriate Government to authorize a person or body under the Electricity Act to exercise the specific powers of an authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The authorisation may be general in favour of a transmission company or in a given case special. The route is decided, not by the Government but by the transmission company. Therefore, at the time when the appropriate Government authorises a person or any body under the Electricity Act, to exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority, all the powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, are meant to be exercised. As per Section 10, particularly Clause (c) thereof, the authority can exercise its powers in respect of the property of a local authority only by obtaining permission of that authority, whereas, no such permission is required in relation to the property of an ordinary citizen.
81. As observed earlier, there is no merit in this contention, since at the stage of authorization under Section 164, even a particular project may not be contemplated at all. Moreover, the decision to mark a route for laying an electric line is a highly specialized and technical decision and unrelated to any specific land owner. Moreover, the route may be over hundreds of kilometers passing over Government lands, lands of local authorities and private lands and it may not be practicable to hear land owners along the entire route. Having regard to the specialized and technical nature of the task, and the fact that the lines are laid for distribution of an essential material resource of the community, Parliament has not provided for any notice or hearing to the public at large or to specific land owners at the stage of planning of the route.
82. Section 10 does not contemplate notice to an owner or occupier of land to show cause against the laying of a line and authorizes the telegraph authority to place a telegraph line under, over, along or across any immovable property. The proviso makes it clear that the Central Government thereby does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property vide (b). Clause (d) provides for payment of full compensation to all persons interested in the land for any damage sustained by them by reason of exercise of those powers.
83. Section 16 provides that if there is any resistance or obstruction, the District Magistrate may in his discretion order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise the powers. Further, after such an order a person offering any further resistance deemed to have committed offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
84. Section 16 also provides for a decision on the sufficiency of compensation by the District Judge. Section 16 thus contemplates a decision of the District Magistrate to enquire: whether the resistance or obstruction is justified and to direct the further exercise of powers. It also contemplates a decision by the District Judge on the question of compensation.
85. In the light of the decisions and discussion, this Court is not inclined to issue any Mandamus, restraining the respondents from erecting or putting up any poles or towers for passing or transmitting any electricity cables or wires through the petitioner's land. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
13. The the decision rendered by this Court, mentioned supra, squarely applies to the facts of this case.
14. The learned Additional Advocate General brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. Nos. 1013 and 1014 of 2013 dated 12.12.2013 wherein the Division Bench of this Court had categorically held in para No.15 that when the intention of the authorities is only to mention the route through which the power lines are to be drawn, the mere fact that the names of some of the Villages are not mentioned in the notification will not vitiate the entire project. It was further held that if the appellants' Village falls between two Villages, whose names are alreaady given in the notification under the head "route", then the appellants cannot be permitted to contend that non-mentioning of their Village name specifically will disentitle the Board from drawing the overhead lines through their Villages. The Division Bench also granted liberty to the appellants to agitate their right to seek for compensation, if any payable, by the Electricity Board. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division Bench reads as follows:-
"21. Further, it is seen that the learned single Judge has given liberty to the appellants to seek for compensation, if any, to be paid for the alleged damage to their property. Therefore, the appellants can agitate their right to seek for compensation, if any payable, by the Electricity Board. Thus, the interest of the appellants is well protected. As the action of the respondent in proceeding with the erection of the towers in the appellants' lands is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the above writ petitions, with which we find no reason to interfere. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed."
15. This decision of the Honourable Division Bench also squarely applies to this case. In this case, the petitioners contend that the respondents failed to even mention the names of their Villages. As held by the Division Bench of this Court, mere non-mentioning of the Villages specifically will not be a ground to interfere with the execution of the project by this Court.
15. The learned Additional Advocate General also relied on another unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 11.08.2014 in W.A. No. 975 of 2014 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that the appellant has no vested interest to suggest that the over head lines should not be drawn above her land. In that case, it was contended that the lines are drawn for a commercial purpose. Even then, the Division Bench of this Court held that it is not a ground to interfere with the statutory functions of the respondents. In the present case, the over head lines are sought to be drawn for a public purpose and therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, I hold that the petitioners have no right to stall the project executed by the respondents on technical pleadings.
16. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the tower lines were sought to be erected in some other route by the influence of the vested interested persons, it was categorically denied by the respondents in their counter by contending that the tower line works were carried out only on the approved route by the Chief Engineer/Transmission, Chennai. The petitioner also did not produce any evidence to substantiate this contention. In the absence of the same, the averment of the petitioner has to be rejected.
17. It is well settled that mere technical defects or defects will not be ground for interference by this Court in exercise of it's power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. In order to fortify this conclusion, it may be useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva, (2013) 4 SCC 97 relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General wherein it was held that "when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred and the courts may in the larger interests of administration of justice may excuse or overlook a mere irregularity or a trivial breach of law for doing real and substantial justice to the parties and pass orders which will serve the interest of justice best." The said ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court is applicable to this case. In the present case, the project sought to be executed by the respondents is in the interest of public at large. It is well settled that public interest will always outweigh private interest. The projects sought to be implemented is a very essential one to transmit the electric power from Northern States of India to Tamil Nadu and also wind power from southern region of Tamil Nadu to tide over the burgeoning power crisis. It is also stated in the counter that the total length of line is 39.00 km with 169 towers out of which for 160 towers concreting have been completed, 142 towers have been erected. Thus, a major portion of the work has already been executed and only a small portion of the work remains to be completed. It is further stated that due to the pendency of this writ petition, the project has been stalled and it could not be completed. Even though there are some technical flaws committed by the respondents, it cannot be a ground for interference. In any event, it is stated that the line proposed to pass through the land of the petitioners will not in any manner affect their cultivation. In those circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent.
18. It is seen from the records that the projects sought to be implemented is a very essential one to transmit the electric power from Northern States of India to Tamil Nadu and also wind power from southern region of Tamil Nadu to tide over the burgeoning power crisis. It is also stated that the towers on either side of the petitioner's land has been erected and only tower No. 62 and 63 has to be laid above the land of the petitioner. In any event, it is stated that the line proposed to pass through the land of the petitioner will not in any manner affect his cultivation. As mentioned above, the project is being implemented in the larger public interest to tide over the power shortage witnessed in the State. While executing such project of greater importance, the respondents have complied with all the formalities under law. In those circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent.
19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is needless to mention that it is open to the petitioners to agitate their right to seek for compensation, if any payable by the respondents.
-11-2014 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No To
1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai, Nandanam Madras
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur
3. The Superintending Engineer General Construction Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Tatabad, Coimbatore
4. The Executive Engineer (TLC) General Construction Circle Compound Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Tatabad, Coimbatore B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh Pre-delivery Order in WP No. 27121 of 2013
-11-2014