Madras High Court
A.G.Ravi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 31 October, 2013
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 31.10.2013
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
Writ Petition No.29611 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
A.G.Ravi .. Petitioner
v.
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvellore District, Thiruvellore.
2. The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
3. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
4. The Chairman,
Consumer Redressal Forum,
TNEB, Thriuvellore District.
5. The Chief Engineer, (South),
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
6. The Superintendent Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
7. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Nazarathpet Electricity Distribution Station,
Nazarathpet, Chennai 600 123. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the first and second respondent from erecting the Electric Post in the petitioner's village consequently the 7th respondent to drop the work and save the human lives.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, (for R1)
Addnl.Govt.Pleader.
Mr.P.Gunaraj, (for R2 to R7)
TNEB
O R D E R
The President of Agramal Panchayat Union, Ponamallee Division, Thiruvellore District, has sought for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the District Collector, Thiruvellore District, Thiruvellore and the Secretary, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Fort St. George, Chennai, the 1st and 2nd respondents from erecting the Electric Post in the petitioner's village. He has also prayed for a direction to the Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Nazarathpet Electricity Distribution Station, Nazarathpet, Chennai, the 7th respondent to drop the work and save the human lives.
2. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that the residents of Patchai Vararana Perumal Koil Street, and villagers of Agramel, gave a representation on 17.09.2013 objecting to the erection of electric posts as it would endanger human lives of the residents. He has further submitted that on receipt of the representation, President of Agramel Panchayat Union, a meeting was convened. It was decided to form a committee to inspect the street and thereafter, a consensus was arrived at, in the Panchayat to send representation objecting to the erection of electric post. Accordingly, a representation dated 01.10.2013, has been sent to the respondents requesting them to stop the erection of new electric posts. As the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner is constrained to prefer the writ petition for the relief stated supra.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
4. First of all, the writ petition is styled as a public interest writ petition. Averments in the supporting affidavit, reflect the general cause of the residents and the villagers of Agramel Panchayat Union, Poonamallee Division, Thiruvellore District. The petitioner, has not substantiated as to how he is personally aggrieved over the action of the respondents in erecting the electric posts. He has not substantiated as to the infringement of any personal rights by the action of the respondents in erection of electric posts.
5. Considering the averments made in the supporting affidavit and the material on record, the petitioner, cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to maintain a writ petition. Reference could be made to the following decisions.
(i) In State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash reported in AIR 1963 SC 507, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that the existence of a right and infringement thereof, are the foundation of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The right that can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution must ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the applicant.
(ii) At paragraph No.2 of the Judgement in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1739, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"Para-2: Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. Fit is a matter of prudence, that the Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or inquiry at the instance of third party where aggrieved here is an effective legal ad organization which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness, or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief."
(iii) In State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev and another, AIR 1964 SC 685, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is legally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226".
(iv). In Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs.Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1966 (2) MLJ (SC) 87: 1966 (2) An.W.R.(SC) 87: AIR 1966 SC 828, at Paragraph 8, the Supreme Court,held as follows:
"The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified."
(v). After considering the above legal principles, a Division Bench of this Court, in Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Madurai through its General Secretary (For and on behalf of Shareholders of Tamilnadu mercantile bank Ltd.) Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Department of Banking Operation Development Centre-I, World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Bombay and others, reported in 2006 (1) CTC 776, at Paragraph No.8, has held as follows:
"The writ petition filed by the appellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter and at best, only its members can have any grievance. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition can only be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence of a right in favour of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction."
6. Though, during the course of arguments, Mr.L.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew the attention of this Court, to a recent accident which occurred in Chennai, where four persons died due to electrocution, when they came in contact with a service line and further submitted that the erection of new posts, would endanger human lives, this Court, is not inclined to issue any mandamus to the respondents, directing not to consider the erection of electric posts, in view of the mandate of the Electricity Act, 2003, to provide supply to an owner or occupier of the premises, provided such occupier is in lawful occupation.
7. The direction or route or way leave, for providing electricity, to the applicant, is left to the discretion of the licencee. While, choosing the way leave, it is for the licencee, to assess the feasibility, cost of expenditure and that erection of posts or towers and drawal of supply lines, should be with the minimal damage to any consumer through whose lands, the supply line is drawn. In the case on hand the photographs produced by the petitioner, shows that supply lines are sought to be drawn through a street. There are houses duly electrified, taking supply from the existing posts. Photographs also shows that the existing electric posts have been erected on the edge of the street. When, electric supply is drawn from the existing posts to the houses in the street, it is not open to the petitioner to object, erection of new electric posts in the same street for providing supply to an intending consumer.
8. As regards, safety of the habitants, it is incumbent on the part of the licencee, to examine the feasibility of erection of new posts and to draw electricity supply lines to an intending consumer. Getting contact with a live electric wire would certainly endanger human life. But at the same time in view of the mandatory provision under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner, in the capacity of the President of Agramel Panchayat Union, Thiruvellore District, has no locus standii to object to the erection of posts more particularly, when he has not substantiated any infringement to his personal rights.
9. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction, for the reason that it is for the licencee to consider all safety measures, and the feasibility of providing supply to any intending consumer.
10. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus as prayed for. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
31.10.2013 Index: Yes Internet: Yes ars To
1. The District Collector, Thiruvellore District, Thiruvellore.
2. The Secretary, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
3. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
4. The Chairman, Consumer Redressal Forum, TNEB, Thriuvellore District.
5. The Chief Engineer, (South), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
6. The Superintendent Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
7. The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Nazarathpet Electricity Distribution Station, Nazarathpet, Chennai 600 123.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
ars W.P.No.29611 of 2013 31.10.2013