Madras High Court
Thervoykandigai Farmers Welfare ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 April, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.8234 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.8234 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.8786, 8787 and 8789 of 2021
Thervoykandigai Farmers Welfare Association
Represented by its President
M.Haridass
No.153, Tiruvalluvar Street,
Thervoykandigai Village and Post,
Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Thiruvallur District,
Tamil Nadu – 601 204. ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented By its Principal Secretary,
Energy Department, Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
Represented by its Chairman, 10th Floor,
NPKRR Maligai, 144, Anna Salai,
Chenai – 600 002.
3.The Junior Engineer,
General Construction Circle
Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
10A, Thiru. Vi.Ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 11
W.P.No.8234 of 2021
4.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur,
Tamil Nadu.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District,
Tamil Nadu.
6.Tahsildar,
Gummudipoondi,
Thiruvallur District
Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the
order in RC.No.22439-2/2019/M2 dated 13.03.2020 passed by the 4th
respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of
natural justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Suhirth Parthasarathy
For R2 and R3 : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar
Standing Counsel
For R1, R4, R5 and R6 : Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 13.03.2020 passed by the fourth respondent, thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner and permitted the second respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021 for laying towers in their respective lands as per approval plan of laying of tower.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner is an Association represented by its President. The petitioner's members are pattadhars of their respective lands situated at Thervoykandigai Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District. While being so, the second respondent proposed erection of transmission lines, including electricity towers towards the Sub Station, across the petitioner's agricultural wet lands. Pursuant to which, the second respondent issued an order dated 28.01.2012 under the Electricity Act, 2003 and also Telegraph Act, 1885 and proposed to erect transmission lines including electricity towers on agricultural land owned and cultivated by the members of the petitioner Association situated at Thervoykandigai Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to select alternative route for erecting electricity lines.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021
4. In an earlier round of litigation, this Court in W.P.Nos.31249 and 31254 of 2019, by an order dated 08.11.2019, directed the fourth respondent herein to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consider their objections under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and pass orders.
5. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without hearing the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed on 13.03.2020, thereby permitted the second respondent to implement the project.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second and third respondents filed counter and submitted that Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act provides only for removal of obstructions to enter into the respective lands, while raising objections by the respective land owners before the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent does not have any power or jurisdiction to decide alternative lines, since the fourth respondent is not an expert.
7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ponnusamy and others Vs The Union of India and Others in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021 W.A.No.1178 of 2021 dated 19.04.2021, in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and held as follows:-
“.............10. On the scope of Section 16 of the Act visa-vis Section 10, the Division Bench of this Court in (ii)C.Ram Prakash and Another Vs. Power Grid Corporation (India) Limited and Others (2011-4 L.W. 924) in which one of us (MMSJ) is a party and author has held as follows:
“22. Scope of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885:The power under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is rather wide and extensive. While exercising the power, it is not necessary for the Respondent No. 1 to put the individuals, who owned the land on notice. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 1has got power under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Such a power has been conferred upon the Respondent No. 1 in public interest.
The exercise of the said power by erecting the towers with overhead lines would not amount to an acquisition. It is true that such an action would diminish the value of the property of an individual, but at the same time it cannot be termed as an acquisition. Since Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides mechanism of compensation,the Appellants can have no grievance.
23. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act provides for a mechanism by which the Respondent No. 1 can approach the second Respondent, if there is an obstruction or resistance. It is not necessary that in each and every case the Respondent No. 1 will have to approach the second Respondent whenever there is an objection. The word objection has got a different connotation than the words resistance or obstruction. A resistance or obstruction would mean preventing the statutory body from carrying out the public duty. Whereas an objection is merely a form of protest. Further, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Respondent No. 2 has got no power to go into the merits of the case and find out as to whether the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021 alignment proposed is correct or not and there is any possibility of realignment. The prescription of Section16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is very specific to provide aid to the Respondent No. 1to perform its statutory duty. Considering the scope of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act vis-a-vis Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it has been held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Scindia Potteries v. Purolator India Ltd.MANU/DE/0189/1980 : AIR 1980 Delhi 157 as follows:9... The exercise of power under Section 10 is not conditional on compliance with the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act. The power given under Section 10 is absolute. It is only when there is a resistance or obstruction in the exercise of that power that the occasion to approach the District Magistrate arises. If there is no resistance or obstruction, there is no occasion for the telegraph authority to approach the District Magistrate. The alleged oral protest relied upon by the Appellant appears to us to be a made up story. Two telegraph poles were affixed on the Appellants' property in February, 1974. The telephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time. Till the landlord-tenant dispute arose between the Appellant and M/S. Purolator India Ltd., no objection was raised by the Appellant. No doubt in April, 1978 the Appellant gave notice to the telegraph authority under Sections 17 and 19A of the Act and may be that the telephone connections in May, 1978 can be treated as the ones objected to but then Sections 17 and 19A have a different purport. The resistance and obstruction envisaged by Section 16(1) of the Act is different. This will be clear on a reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. It is for the purpose of Section 188 I.P.C. that an application is to be given under Section16(1) of the Act to the District Magistrate. Section 188, I.P.C. makes the disobedience of an order duly promulgated by the public servant an offence. Section 16 is really in aid of the discharge of statutory duty and exercise of statutory power postulated by Section 10.We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down therein.”
11. Thus, in view of the same, nothing more is to be stated. In fact, we have also called the officer concerned and perused the records. We also permitted the learned counsel for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021 the appellants to do so. The officer has also explained the procedure which we have recorded supra. We do not find any malice in law or fact. The second respondent is carrying out its statutory duty. Now the entire project is over insofar as the appellants are concerned. We may note that two of the writ petitioners also joined the other in filing the writ petitions after receiving compensation, which cannot be appreciated. Similarly, one of the appellants has also received the compensation amount. It is the appellants who approached the first respondent and for the reasons known, they did not appear for hearing. They have asked for numerous documents, which is for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings. Order under Section 16(1) of the Act was passed not only on the request of the appellants but also that of the second respondent. The role available to first respondent is rather limited. It is neither a supervisory nor an adjudicating authority over the second respondent. When the element of expertise is involved and the same is undertaken by the statutory body as per law, the power of judicial review will have to be entertained with extreme caution. We cannot interfere with the matter on some apprehension expressed by the appellants. ....."”
8. Thus, it is clear that under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the fourth respondent has got no power to go into the merits of the case and find out as to whether the alignment proposed is correct or not and there is any possibility of realignment. The prescription of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is very specific to provide aid to the Secretary to perform its statutory duty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021
9. Further the order impugned in this writ petition is passed under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, not only on the request of the petitioner and also the second respondent. Therefore, the role available for the fourth respondent is rather limited.
10. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 13.03.2020 revealed that during the enquiry all the pattadarars were present except some persons who were not residing in the Village. They have stated in their individual statements that they are objecting to erect tower and transmission line in their lands and requested to erect the same in alternate route. The said request of the pattadhars were forwarded to the second respondent for remarks.
11. Therefore, considering the nature of the project, larger in view of public interest and importance of project, the second respondent is permitted to lay towers in the respective land as per the approved plans of laying of tower as the powers conferred under Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. However, insofar as the alternative route is concerned, already the fourth respondent forwarded for remarks to the second respondent. Therefore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021 the second respondent is directed to consider the request made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders if the project is not completed so far, in respect of the petitioner's land alone. It is made clear that the members of the petitioner Association are at liberty to submit fresh representation to the second respondent, forthwith. On receipt of the same, second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, on the representation submitted by the members of the petitioner Association, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and proceed with the project.
12. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the fourth respondent and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
04.04.2024 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021 To
1. The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Energy Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., 10th Floor, NPKRR Maligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chenai – 600 002.
3.The Junior Engineer, General Construction Circle Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
10A, Thiru. Vi.Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur Tamil Nadu
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District Tamil Nadu
6.The Tahsildar, Gummudipoondi, Thiruvallur District Tamil Nadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 11 W.P.No.8234 of 2021 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn W.P.No.8234 of 2021 04.04.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 11