1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.12404 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.106 of 2011 J.Chitra ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Executive Engineer, General Construction and Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Bye Pass Road, Angu Nagar, Dindigul. 2.The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai-7. 3.The District Collector, Madurai District, District Collector Complex,Madurai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from erecting the Electric Tower and passing electrical line over the petitioner's land in S.No.94/4 in Andipatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District and further to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the existing map in which the electrical line pass over the petitioner's land in S.No.94/4 in Andipatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ghandiraj For Respondents: Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha,Senior Standing Counsel for R1 and R2 Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,Government Advocate for R3 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from erecting the electrical tower and sending the electrical line over and above the petitioner's land. 2.Heard Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent. 3.The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land in Survey No.94/4, Andipatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District and that the respondents 1 and 2 made preparations for erecting a tower in his land with a proposal to send the overhead line over and above his land. 4.When the writ petition came up for admission on 01.11.2011, I directed the Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board to take notice and get instructions as to the stage of erection. 5.Today, it is reported by the learned Standing Counsel that the electrical tower is not yet erected on the land of the petitioner. Though the learned Standing Counsel also contended that the respondents 1 and 2 have no alternative except to erect one tower on the land of the petitioner, it is not open to this Court to consider the same at this stage, as there is another remedy available to the respondents 1 and 2. 6.I have already considered this issue in greater detail in Santhanaraj vs. Chief Engineer, in W.P.No.8844 of 2011 decided on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 08.11.2011. Now that, the petitioner has objected to the erection of the tower on his land, the respondents 1 and 2 should approach the District Magistrate in terms of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. 7.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to approach the District Magistrate in terms of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. If they do so, the District Magistrate shall issue notice to the petitioner, hear his objection and thereafter pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Till then, the respondents shall not erect any pole in the land of the petitioner. Consequently, M.P. (MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR KM To 1.The Executive Engineer, General Construction and Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Bye Pass Road, Angu Nagar,Dindigul. 2.The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai-7. 3.The District Collector, Madurai District, District Collector Complex, Madurai. 1cc to Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Advocate SR No.39136 1cc to Mr.S.M.S.Johny, Advocate SR No.39039 SB:24/11/2011 2p 6c Writ Petition(MD)No.12404 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/