Madras High Court
P.Murugesan vs The District Collector on 27 February, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.02.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.14859 of 2013
P.Murugesan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Karur District, Karur.
2.The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
(TANTRANSCO)
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,
No.144, Mount Road, Chennai.
3.The Chief Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tennur, Trichy
4.The Superintending Engineer,
General Construction Circle,
(The Tamil Nadu Transmission
Corporation Limited)
Mannarpuram, Trichy.
5.The Executive Engineer,
General Construction Circle,
(The Tamil Nadu Transmission
Corporation Limited)
Trichy.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District
7.The Joint Chief Controller
of Explosives
Explosives Safety Organisation,
140 Rukmani Latchmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai. ...
Respondents
(R7 has been impleaded vide order of the Court
dated 18.01.2017 in M.P.No.5/2013)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.H3/3890/2013 dated 12.06.2013 and quash the same and consequently
forbear the respondents from taking electric transmission lines through the
Petitioner s lands in S.F.Nos.1265/2 1266/2 1268/B2 and 1269/2 situate at
Punnamchathram Village Aravakurichi Taluk Karur District.
!For Petitioner : Ms.J.Maria Roseline
^For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham
Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R6
Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha for R2 to R5
Mr.S.Jeyasingh for R7
:ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.H3/3890/2013 dated 12.06.2013 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from taking electric transmission lines through the Petitioner's lands in S.F.Nos.1265/2 1266/2 1268/B2 and 1269/2 situate at Punnamchathram Village Aravakurichi Taluk Karur District.
2.The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, according to the petitioner, is that the petitioner is the Proprietor of Explosives Industry by name Sri Vengalamman Fireworks, which is situated at the land belongs to the wife of the petitioner at S.Nos.1265/2, 1266/2, 1268/B2 and 1269/2 situate at Punnamchatram, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. The petitioner is also having an Explosive Godown at the said survey number. For running the Explosives Industry as well as to have the Explosives Godown, the petitioner obtained valid license from the Explosives Department and accordingly, the petitioner is running the Industry. While so, the respondent Electricity Department wanted to draw a high tension line for 440 KW and above, through the said village, where the petitioner's Explosive Factory is located and when they had the proposal to draw the line, which had to be crossed across the land belongs to the petitioner, where exactly, the Explosive Industry was situated, strong objections were raised by the petitioner, before the first respondent District Collector. Even though such objection was raised by the petitioner, though the District Collector had invited their views from the respondent Electricity Department, the first respondent had ultimately passed the impugned order on 12.06.2013, whereby the first respondent had permitted the 4th respondent to draw the said High Tension line on and across the land belongs to the petitioner. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, dated 12.06.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court in the very order impugned itself, wherein, the first respondent District Collector, even though has found that the said High Tension line was running across exactly on the Explosive Industry and the Explosive Godown belongs to the petitioner located in the said land, the first respondent has given clearance to the Electricity Department to complete the drawal of the line.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would heavily rely upon the findings of the District Collector ie., the first respondent herein, in the impugned order, which reads thus:
?,Ujug;g[ Mtz';fisg; ghprPyid bra;jjpy; kDjhuh; jpU/gp/KUnfrd; vd;gtUf;F brhe;jkhf fU:h; khtl;lk;. mutf;Fwpr;rp tl;lk;. g[d;dk; rj;jpuk; fpuhkk;. g[y vz;/ 1265-2?,y; 20.000 Kg tiuapyhd btobghUl;fis nrkpj;J itf;Fk; btokUe;J nrkpg;g[ fpl';F (chpk vz;/ E/HQ/TN/21/1665/E 54566) kw;Wk; 300Kg tiuapyhd btobghUs; kw;Wk; 1200Kg tiuapyhd kj;jhg;g[ kw;Wk; gl;lhRfis nrkpj;J itj;J tpw;gid bra;a[k; fil (chpk vz;/ E/SC/TN/24/622(E 54528)) Mfpait mike;Js;sd/ ,tw;Ws; kpd; bjhluikg;g[f; fHfj;jhy; mikf;fg;gLk; 400 KV bfhz;l cah; mGj;j kpd;ghijahdJ btokUe;J nrkpg;g[f; fpl';fpy; ,Ue;J Rkhh; 78 Kjy; 82 kPl;lh; tiuapyhd bjhiytpy; mikf;f cj;njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhf kDjhuh; mtuJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ Mdhy; kDjhuUf;F tH';fg;gl;l btokUe;J nrkpg;g[f; fpl';fpw;fhd chpkj;jpy; (No.E/HQ/TN/21/1665/E 54556)y; ghJfhg;g[ J}uj;ijf; Fwpg;gpLk; gotk; DE-2 y; Overhead Elecrical Lines vd;w jiyg;gpd;fPH; thpir vz;/27y; Electrical Power Overhead Transmission Lines above 440 V vd;gjw;F vjpuhf ghJfhg;g[ J}uk; 60 kPl;lh; vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ f/gukj;jp 400 KV Jiz kpd;epiyak; Kjy; rpd;dnryk; tiu 453 kpd;nfhg[uk; mikf;Fk; gzp. jpUr;rp kpd;bjhlh; fl;Lkhd nfhl;lj;jpd; nkw;ghh;itapy; jw;rkak; 90# gzpfs; epiwt[ bgw;Wtpl;ljhYk;. kDjhuh; jpU/gp/KUnfrd; vd;gtuJ epyj;jpd; btspg;gFjpapy; ,Ug[wKk; mDkjpf;fg;gl;l kpd;nfhg[u';fs; Vw;fdnt mikf;fg;gl;Ltpl;ljhYk;. kDjhuuJ epyj;jpd; tHpahf mikf;f ntz;oa[s;s 24 kpd; flj;jpfs;. 2 epiy ,izg;g[ fk;gpfs; kw;Wk; 16 kpd;flj;jp fk;gpfs; Vw;fdnt ,Gf;fg;gl;Ltpl;ljhYk;. JkpHfj;jpy; jw;rkak; epyt[k; kpd;gw;whf;Fiwapid fUj;jpy;bfhz;Lk;. bghJkf;fs; kw;Wk; rKjha eyk; fUjpa[k; 400KV kpd; mGj;jk; bfhz;l kpd;ghij jdJ btokUe;J nrhkpg;g[ fpl';fpypUe;J ruhrhpahf 80kP J}uj;jpy; mikf;fg;gl;lhy;. jdJ btokUe;J fpl';fpw;F kl;Lky;yhJ bgUkst[ caph; kw;Wk; bghUs; nrjk; Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sjhfj; bjhptpj;J. nkw;go kpd;ghijia jdJ g[y vz;/1265-2y; bfhz;L bry;y vjphpg;g[k; Ml;nrgida[k; bjhptpj;J kpd;ghijia khw;wpaikf;f ntz;Lbkd nfhhpa[s;s kDjhuhpd; nfhhpf;ifia epuhfhpj;J fU:h; khtl;lk;. mutf;Fwpr;rp tl;lk;. g[d;dk; rj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/1265-2. 1266-
2. 1268-2 kw;Wk; 1269-2 Mfpa vz;fspy; cs;s jpU/gp/KUnfrd; j-bg/ gHdpag;gd;
vd;gtUf;F brhe;jkhd epyj;jpd; tHpna kpd; nfhg[uk;. kpd;ghij mikf;f The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 gphpt[?14?d; go jkpH;ehL kpd;rhu thhpak;. jkpH;ehL kpd; bjhluikg;g[ fHfk;. bghJ eph;khd tl;lk;. jpUr;rp. nkw;ghh;itg; bghwpahsUf;F mDkjp tH';fp Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/??
6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that assuming that the Explosives Godown building is located 78-82 Kms away from the 440 KW HT line, the other buildings, which were constructed and being utilised as retail crackers godown, which is just between 27 to 30 Kms away from the HT line, if it is the case of the respondent department that atleast at one point, the line is crossing within the prohibited area of 30 mts., then, certainly, the line should not have been drawn, as if any untoward incident is taken place in the said godown, where crackers are stored always, that will have the greater repercussion, route which will lead to havoc in the nearby locality. Therefore, in order to ensure the utmost safety of the proposed high tension line, the respondents should have explored the possibility of an alternative, which, in fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was originally mooted and subsequently for the reasons best known to them has been changed and the line was proposed to be drawn across the land belongs to the petitioner.
7. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Electricity Department, by relying upon the very same impugned order passed by the first respondent Collector, has argued, that 90% of the drawal of the line - I was completed already, even at the time of the objections made by the petitioner, permission was granted by the Collector and it was also the fact that there is no tower or pole has been erected within the land belongs to the petitioner, where his explosive factory is located and it is located only beyond the prohibited distance and therefore, from the safety point of view, there is no endanger either to the factory of the petitioner or to the HT line drawn by the Department and therefore, considering these aspects only, the first respondent District Collector has given permission to the Department to complete the drawal of the line and accordingly, it was completed and as of now, the Electricity is being transmitted through the said line.
8. This Court, after hearing the said submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and after perusing the relevant documents filed before this Court by both sides, in fact, had directed the petitioner to produce the license obtained by them from the Explosives Department, who was impleaded as the 7th respondent by the orders of this Court dated 18.01.2017. The 7th respondent, on notice, has appeared before this Court through their counsel, who has filed a counter affidavit to that effect before this Court.
9. According to the 7th respondent, the petitioner has already been given two valid explosive licenses, one is valid upto 31.03.2019 and the other one is valid upto 31.03.2017. From the said averments made by the 7th respondent through the counter affidavit, it become obvious that the petitioner is running these explosives factory only after obtaining necessary license from the Department concerned and the license is still in force. In fact, before granting license, the proposed structure to be constructed for establishing the factory had been approved by the Explosive Department and only based on the approval given by the said Department, constructions were made, wherein, the factory has been located. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the petitioner for having located the Explosive factory in the said land for which, license was obtained long back.
10. When the said factory of the petitioner was running, subsequently only, proposal to draw the HT line to transmit 440 KW electricity was conceived and when they had the proposal to draw the line, these objections were raised. Though valid objections have been raised by the petitioner, on the ground that its Explosive factory including explosive godown and the retail crackers godown are very nearly located and atleast the retail crackers godown is situated very near to the HT line and in fact, it is within the prohibited limit, the answer given by the respondent Department before the first respondent was that even the said location of the Explosive Industry including the godown would no way affect the running of the HT line and in this regard, the safety distance were measured and calculated and only on satisfaction of the department, this line was proposed to be drawn. In this regard, the actual defence given by the respondent Department before the first respondent Collector has been mentioned in the impugned order itself, which reads thus:
?nkw;go kDjhuhpd; epyj;jpd; btspg;gFjpapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;l kpd;nfhg[u';fs; Vw;fdnt mikf;fg;gl;Ltpl;ld vdt[k;. kDjhuhpd; epyj;jpd; tHpahf mikf;f ntz;oa 24 kpd;flj;jpfs; kw;Wk; epiy ,izg;g[ fk;gpfs;. 16 kpd;flj;jp fk;gpfs; Vw;fdnt ,Gf;fg;gl;Ltpl;ld vdt[k;. nkw;fz;l kpd;ghijapypUe;J kDjhuhpd; epyj;jpy; mike;Js;s gl;lhR tpw;gid fl;olj;jpw;F tpjpKiwapd;go cs;s gf;fthl;L J}uk; kw;Wk; cauk; Mfpait nghJkhdjhfnt cs;sJ vdt[k;. ,k;kpd; ghij kpft[k; bjhHpy;El;gj;Jld; braw;if nfhs;fspd; (nrl;oiyl;) cjtpa[ld; mikf;fg;gl;L tUfpd;wd vdt[k;. g[d;dk;rj;jpuk; fpuhk gFjpapy; cs;s midj;J fy;Fthhpfs;. cah; kpd; mGj;j nfhg[u ghijfs; kw;Wk; rhiyfs; Mfpatw;iw fUj;jpy; bfhz;L Vw;fdnt. Xg;g[jy; tH';fg;gl;l tHpahfnt kpd;ghij mikf;fg;gl;L tUfpwJ vd;Wk;. nkYk; kDjhuhpd; ,lj;jpy; ahbjhU kpd;nfhg[uKk; mikf;fg;gltpy;iy vdt[k; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ nkYk;. jw;bghGJ jkpHfj;jpy; epytptUk; kpd;gw;whf;Fiwapid rhp bra;at[k;. jkpHfj;jpd; bjw;F kw;Wk; tlf;F gFjpapid ,izf;Fk; KjbfYk;ghf mikf;fg;gl cs;s ,g;ghijapid tUk; 10-2013?f;Fs; Koj;J bghJkf;fspd; gad;ghl;ow;F bfhz;Ltu ntz;oa[s;sJ vdt[k;. Mfnt. kDjhuh; jpU/KUnfrd; mth;fspd; epyj;jpy; kPjKs;s kpd;flj;jpfs; kw;Wk; epy ,izg;g[ fk;gpfis mikj;J nkw;go kpd;ghij gzpapid chpa fhyj;jpy; Kof;f jf;f Miz tH';fpLkhWk; nfhhpa[s;shh;/? ?
11. Only on consideration of these objections and defence given by both parties, the first respondent has given his permission through the impugned order. Since the said HT line already been drawn and the work has been completed, where the electricity is being transmitted, the question of relocating the said HT line, at this juncture, may not be feasible for compliance. However, it was the specific stand on the part of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the impugned order, whereby, the permission was granted to the respondent Department to complete the drawal of the line, since the said line had already been drawn, atleast, in future, as they have already assured, let the Electricity Department not to erect a new tower or pole within the land belongs to the petitioner, where, exactly, the Explosive Factory is located.
12. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the objections of the petitioner, the Electricity Department has entered into the premises of the petitioner and in that process, they have heavily damaged the wired fence put up by the petitioner. Therefore, whatever damage caused to the wired fence of the petitioner, because of the high handed act on the part of the respondent Electricity Department, if the same is rectified and damages to that effect is paid to the petitioner, the petitioner would be satisfied, provided, the respondent Electricity Department should not erect further pole or tower or any further electricity transmission line in future on the lands belong to the petitioner.
13. In this regard, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit dated 22.02.2017, wherein, the petitioner has averred as follows:
?2.I respectfully submit that during the course of the arguments in the writ petition, I and my lawyer felt that it would not be feasible for relocating the electrical transmission lines in view of the commission of Koodankulam Power project. But however as a precautionary measure, in order to avoid any future fire hazard in my premises, I insisted for the respondents 2 to 5 to restrain from locating/fixing any electric tower and pole or laying any further electric transmission lines within the lands of the petitioner. I also seek for a direction to the respondents/electricity authorities to relay the wire fence which was damaged by the respondents 2 to 5 while forcibly entering into the lands of the petitioner.
3. I respectfully submit that I am filing the present affidavit detailing the relief sought for me in pursuance of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court requiring me to file such an affidavit. By granting the relief sought for me in the present affidavit, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. On the other hand, I would be put to grave and irreparable loss, if the relief as sought for by me is not granted.
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to relay the wire fence of the petitioner's premises which was damaged by the respondents 2 to 5 while forcibly entering into the petitioner's lands and to restrain the respondents 2 to 5 from locating/fixing any electric tower and pole or laying any further electric transmission lines within the lands of the petitioner comprised in S.F.Nos.1265/2, 1266/2, 12638/B2 and 1269/2 situate at Punnamchathram Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District and pass such further or other suitable orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.?
14. The said affidavit having been served on the respondents, ie., the Electricity Department and on instructions from them, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Department would submit before this Court that the Electricity Department would be ready and willing to either rectify the damage done to the wired fence of the petitioner or to pay the money by way of damages for the said wired fence, if the same is quantified by the first respondent, of course, after hearing the views of both sides.
15. Insofar as the future plan to erect any pole or tower or to draw any new line across the lands belong to the petitioner, where the factory is located, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Electricity Department would submit that there is no such proposal for the respondent Department either to erect new pole or tower or to draw any new line in the said lands belong to the petitioner.
16. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent would submit that though the issue is between the petitioner and the respondent Electricity Department, the actual order, which is impugned herein, was passed by the first respondent District Collector. After having considered the relevant merits and claim of both sides, as the issue raised by the petitioner and the public interest was taken into consideration and since the proposed line, where the Electricity is being transmitted is a 440 KW HT transmission line, which was very much required for the general public and that is the reason why the first respondent, has passed a reasoned order and has taken a pragmatic decision through the impugned order. He would further submit that if at all any amicable settlement comes between the parties, as has been indicated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Department, then, the first respondent would be ready and willing to decide the issue, if the same is referred to him, after elucidating the views from both sides and ultimately a final conclusion be arrived at by the first respondent, accordingly, both parties can act upon.
17. In view of the said submissions made by either side and in view of the fact that the 440 KW HT line has already been drawn, where electricity is being transmitted and also in the interest of public, where the transmission of electricity is an essential and vital aspect for the upliftment of Society at large, where the State was running, at that time, under severe power crisis, the decision taken by the first respondent District Collector, as reflected in the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, need not be interfered with. However, since the petitioner is already running the Explosive Factory, of course, after getting necessary license from the 7th respondent, who is the competent authority to give such license and if at all any HT line is drawn across the land, where the factory is exactly located, it may have a repercussion in the said factory, in case, any untoward incident is taken place. The said apprehension on the part of the petitioner is well founded and the same cannot be brushed aside. However, after considering the said issue, of course, after getting necessary particulars from the respondent Electricity Department, the first respondent has given the permission, ultimately, as the safety distance between the factory, godown etc. from the HT line, was ensured and therefore, the permission given by the Collector through the impugned order need not be interfered with.
18. At the same time, since the petitioner's wired fence has been damaged, as they claimed and the said factor is not seriously disputed by the Electricity Department and also the learned counsel for the Electricity Department contended before this Court that whatever damages done to the petitioner, while doing the work towards the said fence of the petitioner, the same can be rectified, this Court is of the view that the damages caused to the petitioner for the wired mess, which according to them, has been considerably damaged, either, the Electricity Department to rectify it and re-lay it or to pay the compensation or cost, which shall be quantified by the first respondent, of course, after hearing the views of both sides.
19. In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition:
(i) The impugned order for the reasons stated above is justifiable and sustainable and therefore, it requires no interference from this Court ;
(ii) The respondent Electricity Department, either shall replace the damaged wired fence of the petitioner's premises or to pay the cost/compensation, which shall be quantified by the first respondent, if the same is referred to him by both the petitioner as well as the respondent Electricity Department within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ;
(iii) On receipt of such a reference being made by both the petitioner as well as the Electricity Department, of course, by way of separate written applications in this regard and after having exchanged the same between them, at the instance of the first respondent and after hearing personally both the petitioner as well as the respondent Electricity Department, on a specific date to be fixed for such personal hearing with advance intimation to the parties, the first respondent District Collector shall decide and quantify the damages done to the petitioner for their damaged wired fence and once the same is quantified by the District Collector within a period of six weeks from such reference from both sides, the said amount shall be paid by the Electricity Department to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter ;
(iv) In view of the said facts and circumstances, as discussed above and in view of the stand taken by the respondent Electricity Department, the respondent Electricity Board shall not erect any new pole or tower or drawal of any new line either HT line or LT line, on and across the lands belong to the petitioner, where the Explosive factory of the petitioner is located, in future ;
(v) It is made clear that any such proposal is mooted by the Electricity Department, the same shall be first intimated to the petitioner and after hearing the objections only, such proposal can be proceeded further in accordance with the decision to be taken by the first respondent.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
2.The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., (TANTRANSCO) Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, No.144, Mount Road, Chennai.
3.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tennur, Trichy
4.The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, (The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited), Mannarpuram, Trichy.
5.The Executive Engineer, General Construction Circle, (The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited), Trichy.
6.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District
7.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Explosives Safety Organisation, 140 Rukmani Latchmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai.
.