Madras High Court
S. Kannappan (Died) And Ors. vs The Commr., Tiruvottriyur ... on 7 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)3MLJ235, AIR 2000 MADRAS 56, (1999) 3 MAD LJ 235
ORDER Toom Meenakumari, J.
1. This writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the electrical poles, service lines and the electricity supply lines from the first petitioner's land in Sannadhi Street in S. No. 169/1 of Sathangadu Village of Kaladipet, Thiruvotriyur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land of about 4 acres in S. No. 169/1 known as Thirupurasundari Garden of Sathangadu Village in the street called Sannadhi Street, Kaladtpet, Salhangadu. This petitioner has prepared a layout for the said land and obtained sanction in 1975. An extent of about 1 acre abutting Sannadhi Street in the said area was reserved for construction of a cinema theatre by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondents/Electricity Board had erected street lights in the petitioner's land in violation of section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act.
3. Section 12(2) of the said Act reads as follows :
"12. Provision as to the opening and breaking up of streets, railways and tramways :
(1).. .......
(a) to (e) ..........
(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, to lay down or place any electric supply-line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, where over or whereunder any electric supply-line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee :
Provided that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose or securing in position any support of an overhead line may he fixed on any building or land or having been so fixed, may be altered, notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier of such building or land, if the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police by order in writing so directs :
Provided also, that, if at any lime the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any such support, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondents have not obtained consent of the petitioner before erecting the electric poles. Respondents have not filed any counter in this regard.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of Calcutta High Court reported in Aswini Kumar v. Manager, Calcutta Elec. Sup. Corporation , to substantiate his contention that Section 12(2) of the said Act contemplates the consent of owner of the land and in violation of the conditions imposed under Section 12(2) of the said Act, respondents/Electricity Board has no authority to erect the poles.
6. It is a fact that Section 12(2) of the said Act imposes a condition to obtain consent of the owner of the land before erecting poles, and in this case, respondents are not able to prove that they have obtained the consent of the land owner. Under the above circumstances, it has to be held that there is violation of the conditions imposed under Section 12(2) of the said Act. It is a fit case wherein a direction shall go to the respondents to remove the electric poles, service lines and the electricity supply lines connected thereto from the petitioner's land immediately. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W. M. P. 23034 of 1991 is closed.