Madras High Court
A.R.Rajalakshmi vs The Executive Engineer on 3 November, 2015
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.11.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WP.No.22460 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 A.R.Rajalakshmi .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Krishnagiri. 2.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Palakodu, Krishnagiri District. 3.Ramamoorthy .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give electricity connection to the petitioner's land at S.No.18/2, Seebam Village, Kamapalli Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Varunkumar For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Jayachandran ORDER
Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Varunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Jayachandran, the learned counsel for the third respondent.
2.The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of direction upon the respondents 1 and 2 to give electricity connection for the petitioner's land at S.No.18/2, Seebam Village, Kamanapalli Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
3.The petitioner would state that on account of objection raised by the third respondent, the electricity supply has not been given to his agricultural land.
4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent/Electricity Board shows that sixteen poles have to be installed, so as to draw the electricity line to the petitioner's property and out of 16 poles, six poles would fall within the patta lands of the third respondent, to which, the third respondent has raised an objection.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent has suggested an alternate route and if the electricity line is drawn through the alternate route, the third respondent's land would not be affected. It is his further submission that, No Objection Certificate from the Village Administrative Officer is awaited in this regard.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that if there is an alternate route, the petitioner is ready and willing to draw the line through the said alternate route, at his own costs and expenses.
6. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to examine the proposal given by the third respondent suggesting an alternate route and make a feasible study in consultation with the Revenue Officials and take decision on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.11.2015 ds To
1.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Krishnagiri.
2.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Palakodu, Krishnagiri District.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J., ds WP.No.22460 of 2014 03.11.2015