Madras High Court
Mrs. Mary 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. 18633 of 2014
1. Mrs. Mary
2. Mrs. Kirubamani
3. Mrs. Manormani
4. S. Anandraj
5. S. Thingaran
6. S. Nesakumar .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002
2. The Chief Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Limited
Vellore Distribution Circle
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore - 632 006
3. The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Limited
Vellore Distribution Circle
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore - 632 006
4. The Divisional Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Limited
Katpadi Circle
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore - 632 006
5. The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Limited
Katpadi Circle
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore - 632 006
6. The Assistant Engineer
Transmission Line Construction
Old Katpadi
Vellore - 632 007
7. The Executive Engineer
Transmission Line Construction
Dharmapuri 636 705
8. The District Collector
Vellore District
Vellore - 632 009
9. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd
N.P.K.R. Ramasamy Maligai
144, Anna Salai
Chennai - 600 002
10. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
Rep. by its Deputy General Manager/CAO
765/400 KV Thirumangalam Sub Station
K.R. Thangal Village (P.O)
Katpadi Taluk, Vellore 632 516 .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 8th respondent proceedings in K.Dis.C3/11050/2014 dated 19.06.2014 and to quash the same and to forbear the respondents 6 to 9 from in any way interfering with the agricultural activities of the petitioners in respect of the lands in S.Nos. 117/1 to 117/5 at Kandipedu Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District admeasuring 3 Acres and 54 Cents.
For Petitioners : Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Advocate
for M/s. P. Wilson Associates
For Respondents : Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. M. Varunkumar
ORDER
The petitioners have come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the eighth respondent dated 19.06.2014 and to issue a consequential direction forbearing the respondents 6 to 9 from in any way interfering with their agricultural activities in the lands comprised in S.Nos. 117/1 to 117/5 at Kandipedu Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District admeasuring 3 Acres and 54 Cents.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are agriculturists and are in possession of the lands in question. According to them, the respondents, without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, have attempted to illegally trespass into their property purportedly in exercise of power under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. According to the petitioners, the sixth respondent trespassed into their land for putting up a construction of 400KV DC lines from Mettur Stage-II to Thiruvalam 400KV SS and proceeded with the construction of Mettur-Thiruvalam Transmission line through the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that the respondents have not followed the procedures laid down under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. According to the petitioners, their lands have not been acquired in a manner known to law or they have been paid compensation. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondents, instead of erecting the transmissions on the adjacent poromboke lands, have deliberately failed to do so for obvious reasons. The respondents also adopted dubioius method by avoiding transmission line in straight line instead planned it to bring in to the petitioners land and then move on to the other side in "V"shape. The petiitoners have therefore sent a letter dated 20.05.2014 objecting to the laying of high power lines and digging of holes. A reply dated 12.06.2014 was sent informing that the project is being implemented by the 8th respondent and directed the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, to the 8th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners sent their objection on 26.05.2014 to the 8th respondent. While the petitioners were anticipating a reply, the 8th respondent issued a notice dated 13.06.2014 requiring the petitioners to appear for an enquiry on 16.06.2014. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners appeared and orally objected to the grant of permission to enter upon the lands without being acquired in a manner known to law. The petitioners also sought time to engage a counsel of their choice to submit a detailed written objection. However, even without granting any further time, the 8th respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 thereby permitting the officials to enter upon the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of erecting the high tension power line. Therefore, challenging the order dated 19.06.2014 of the eighth respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that the impugned order has been passed by the eighth respondent in total violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners appeared for an enqujiry on 16.06.2014 and sought time to file their written objections, however, without even granting any time, the eighth respondent passed the impugned order which is legally not sustainable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 8th respondent has no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as contemplated under Section 16 of The Indian Telegraph Act, read with Section 10 (d). The 8th respondent, with oblique motive and in collusion with influencial persons in the locality, altered the original plan proposed for erection of towers and resultantly ordered to erect the high tension electrical tower in the lands of the petitioners.
4. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that under Section 164 and 185 (2) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Board shall have the powers of the Telegraphic Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to laying of the telegraphic lines and erecting poles. As such, the transmission licensee is not bound to give prior notices to the land owners before drawing overhead lines or erecting towers for transmission of electricity. Further, the project for erection of high tension towers is meant to serve the public at large and there is no malafide or oblique motive on the part of the respondents in implementing the project. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the scheme was approved vide Board Proceedings No. 8 dated 04.02.2013 and published in both Tamil and English dailies on 27.03.2013. The Board has scrutinised the data collected during the survey regarding environmental considerations, road crossings, river crossing and inhabitants. While conducting such survey, the Board has taken special care to avoid routing the transmission lines thorugh reserve or protected forests, villages, bulk storage oil tank, oil pipeline, airports and cluster of hamlets to avoid and to minimise the damages, if any, that may be caused to the land owners. The tower laying work is being carried out as per the approved route. The project of erecting 400 KV line of Dharmapuri to Thiruvalam 400 KV substation is very much essential to transmit electrical power from the Northern States of India to Tamil Nadu and also wind power from the Southern Regions of Tamil Nadu. The Board is not acquiring any land for the purpose of implementing the project, but only making use of it for laying of the tower foundation and drawing the line over the lands as contemplated under Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003. The work has already commenced on 20.11.2013 and it is under progress. Out of 484 towers, 460 towers have been erected and 80% of the work has been substantially completed. Even after erection of the tower, the land owners can continue their cultivation and there will not be any impediment to do so. The compensation will be paid only if there is damage or loss caused to the trees at the time of execution and not for erecting the towers over the lands. Even such compensation will be paid for actual damages caused during the execution of work according to the provision of Act for crops and trees. The project, if implemented, will benefit the public at large. Such project is implemented after complying with all the legal formalities. The project was estimated to complete during July 2014 but due to the pendency of this writ petition, the project could not be completed. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The petitioners have filed a reply to the counter affidavit of the 7th respondent contending that in the original plan, the property of the petitioners were not included, however, in the deviated approved line, the 7th respondent included the lands of the petitioners without verification as to whether it belonged to the petitioners or not. Under Section 16 of The Indian Telegraph Act, the 8th respondent has no power or authority to alter any different route for erecting the transmission line or issue an "enter upon permission". The District Collector is not conversant with the technical aspects especially when the petitioners have raised their objection about the change of the original route. There are groundnut crops raised in the lands of the petitioners and for causing damages to such crops, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. The respondents are not merely passing the high tension wire across the lands of the petitioners but erecting the tower. Therefore, the respondents have to follow the conditions laid down under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraphic Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents gave a complaint to the local police as if tower erected by them has been damaged by the petitioners and others. On the basis of such complaint, the police are threatening the petitioners to withdraw this writ petition. Even though the District Collector has given enter upon permission on 19.06.2014, in the complaint given to the police, it has been claimed that attempts have been made to erect the tower on 15.07.2014 and it was prevented by the petitioners. The respondents are not bonafide in their action and it calls for interference by this Court.
6. The 7th respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit stating that during the course of hearing, the respondent produced a route plan. The plan shown was only a google plan approved on 22.11.2013 in which the survey number, extent of land and locality of erection of tower has not been indicated. Such a plan cannot be relied on to say that the plan shown therein was subsequently altered or deviated. There was no indication whether the line will pass through the Village or District. While so, the plan approved by the District Collector cannot be said to be an altered one deviating the original route plan purportedly in exercise of power under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
7. I heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners appeared before the 8th respondent for an enquiry and sought time, however, without granting any further time, the impugned order has been passed by the eighth respondent.
8. It is true that in response to the notice dated 13.06.2014 issued by the fourth respondent, the petitioners appeared for an enquiry on 16.06.2014. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners orally objected to the execution of the project. Further, the petitioners sought for engaging an advocate to submit an objection. According to the petitioners, even though the 8th respondent assured to grant time, he did not do so, rather, the 8th respondent passed the impugned order without even adverting to the objections raised by the petitioners. This according to the petitioners is in violation of principles of natural justice.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that mere technical defects will not vitiate the order passed by the 8th respondent especially when there is no need to give prior notices to the land owners before drawing overhead lines or erecting towers for transmission of electricity. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Laxmibai vs. Bhagwantbuva reported in (2013) 4 SCC 97 to drive home the point that mere technical defects will not be a ground for interference by this Court.
10. Though it is contended that the 8th respondent, without granting any further time has passed the impugned order rejecting the plea of the petitioners, it is not actually proved by the petitioners that they have really sought time. Even assuming that the petitioners appeared and sought for time, the matter was pending for a long time and only thereafter, the impugned order was passed. In any event, the petitioners have given expressed their objections and it was considered in detail by the 8th respondent and only thereafter, the impugned order was passed on merits. Merely because further time was not granted, that cannot be a reason to set aside the order passed by the eighth respondent nor it can be construed as a violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on this ground, I am not inclined to set aside the order passed by the eighth respondent.
11. The next ground of attack is that the impugned order has been passed by the eighth respondent without any prior approval or permission from the competent authority as contemplated under Section 16 and 68 of The Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. In this context, the learned Additional Advocate General 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 petitioners is liable to be rejected.
12. The various other issues raised on behalf of the petitioners 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 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.
16. 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.
17. As regards the contention of the petitioners 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. It was reiterated in the counter that there was no scope for any deviation or alteration of the original route proposed and the petitioners have not specifically brought out the alleged manner in which the plan was deviated. In order to substantiate this contention, the petitioners did not produce any evidence relating to the alleged deviation in the originally proposed route map. In the absence of the same, the averment of the petitioners have to be rejected.
18. As mentioned supra, 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 about 80% of the project work has been 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. 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. 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. MP No.1 of 2014 is closed.
-11-2014 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh 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 Pre-delivery Order in WP No. 18633 of 2014
-11-2014