IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.09.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.20322 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Vinay Hirawat ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Director, Transmission Projects, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2. The Superintending Engineer, TNEB, General Construction Circle II, No.A10, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 3. The District Magistrate, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the file of the 2nd respondent made in Lr.No.SE/GCC/CNI/FDM/F.req./33910 dated 26.08.2010 and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to follow Rule 3 of the works of Licensees Rules, 2006 for carrying the work over and around the petitioner's lands and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to examine the possibility of relocation of poles viz., LOCAP 48 and 49 which is to be located around petitioner's lands in S.F.Nos.344, 345 and 346 including all sub divisions located in Papparawakkam Village, Mannur, Thiruvallur Taluk and District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.Su.Srinivasan For Respondents: Mr.A.Selvendran, for R1 & R2 Mr.S.Gopinathan, for R3 Additional Government Pleader O R D E R By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. Challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26.08.2010 and for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to follow Rule 3 of the works of Licensees Rules, 2006 for carrying the work over and around the petitioner's lands and for a further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to examine the possibility of relocation of poles viz., LOCAP 48 and 49 which is to be located around his lands in S.F.Nos.344, 345 and 346 including all sub divisions located in Papparawakkam Village, Mannur, Thiruvallur Taluk and District, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner are as follows: (i) The petitioner is running the business of Plastic Raw Material and has Godown in different places. He intended to establish big and compact Godown at one place. Hence, he purchased 4.5 acres in S.F.Nos.344, 345 and 346 in Papparawakkam Village, Mannur, Thiruvallur Taluk and District along with his father. He also intended to purchase other lands in and around the land owned by him. While this being so, the petitioner came to know that the respondents are planning to erect high tension transmission grid and the possibility of taking cables over the land. The petitioner, on coming to know about the project, had on his own interest contacted the officials of the respondents to ascertain the project. The petitioner was told that there is a proposal of taking cables in and around his land. He also came to know that no specific areas/lands were identified to take cables, but was told that the cables may be taken over his lands. When the petitioner requested to furnish the details with regard to lands, over which, overhead cables/lines are intended to be taken, he was not furnished with the particulars. However, the petitioner was informally told that the cables would be taken in the middle of his land in Survey Nos.344 to 346. (ii) Therefore, the petitoner met the 2nd respondent and also its subordinates and made a representation on 19.06.2010 and another representation on 08.07.2010 and the said representation was personally handed over in the office of the respondents and acnowledgement was given in the delivery book. The petitioner also sent further representation/telegram to the respondents on 29.07.2010 with a request to consider realignment. (iii) The petitioner, in his representation had suggested that the overhead lines could be taken over his land in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.F.Nos.345/2, 345/18, 345/19, 346/3A and 344/5. He also suggested that if his land is offered to the respondents, the remaining part of the lands could be effectively utilized by him. However, the subordinates of the 2nd respondent orally informed the petitioner that cable would be taken in the middle of his lands in S.F.Nos.344/3A, 344/5, 345/15, 245/16, 345/17, 345/18, 345/19, 345/20, 345/20, 345/21, 346/20, 346/21, 346/3A, 346/9, 345/5 etc. These lands are situated in the middle of the petitioner's other lands. (iv) According to the petitioner, he is one of the leading traders in plastic raw material and chemicals and had purchased these parts which are more than 4.5 acres and also negotiated with other land owners for purchasing other lands, so that the compact unit of lands could be available to the petitioner for establishing sophisticated warehouse. If lines are drawn either side of the lands of the petitioner, his project would not be affected. Otherwise, being huge cables, atleast 100 feets from either side of the cables cannot be used by the petitioner for construction of warehouse. Even electronic equipments/components may get affected in the vicinity of the cables. In fact, the petitioner had also suggested alternative proposal, wherein also, the petitioner had offered his other parts of lands over which the cables could be taken. Their efforts have not yielded any result and they have informed the petitioner and his father on 28.07.2010 that they will not change the plan and in fact, they will deviate slightly from South to North side, which will not affect the projects. (v) Another suggestion was also made by the petitioner about the possibility of laying the cables in the adjoining abandoned public road by which pole can be reduced. The petitioner's specific objection in the representation was that if the overhead lines are taken in the middle of his lands, much inconvenience would be caused and his project may not take place. However, the respondents without examining the issues raised by the petitioner and in deviation to the rule, instead of forwarding the petitioner's objection to the Executive Magistrate, have decided on their own and without even formally communicating any notice, getting consent and quantifying the compensation, the respondents are proceeding with the projects. (vi) The petitioner, earlier approached this court in W.P.No.17179 of 2010 with the prayer to direct the respondents to consider his alternative proposal and this court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 05.08.2010 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. At the time of the order of this court, the 2nd respondent had only dug the pit for erecting tower foundation. Even before considering the petitioner's representation as directed by this court, the respondents proceeded to erect tower foundation in two pits. Aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in proceeding with the project by ignoring the mandate of this court made in W.P.No.17179 of 2010, the petitioner was again constrained to approach this court in W.P.No.19711 of 2010 with a prayer to direct the respondents not to proceed with the work without passing orders as directed by this court. In the said writ petition, this court had granted interim injunction on 26.08.2010 and directed the TNEB counsel to verify as to whether any orders have been passed on the petitioner's representation. Thereafter, the petitioner was delivered the order on 28.08.2010 purported to have been passed as directed by this court, wherein, it was stated that the petitioner's representation cannot be entertained. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed. 5. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had offered his lands alternatively to use for the realignment of H.T Power line and without referring the same to the District Magistrate, the 2nd respondent has proceeded with the allocation of High Tension Power Lines across the petitioner's land by digging pits. He would further contend that it is the obligation on the part of the respondents to follow the procedures contemplated under law and that if any objection is made, it should be referred to the District Magistrate, who is the competent authority under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Without doing so, the respondents proceeded and therefore, the entire action of the respondents is vitiated and the impugned proceedings is also not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions and by producing a sketch of the area, wherein they have proposed to erect High Tension Power Lines, made a consistent point that the proposal of erection of tower has been proceeded after taking the opinion of the technical experts and the feasibility report and therefore any realignment will cause serious prejudice to the respondents. By pointing out the sketch that a direct line of erection is proposed, he would submit that the petitioner's suggestion for realignment cannot be accepted as it will have financial exchequer on the part of the respondents to proceed. 7. After elaborate arguments and discussion, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the end of his arguments made a plea that as per the provisions under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is the obligation on the part of the 2nd respondent to refer the objections to the District Magistrate and thereafter the petitioner's objections shall be considered by the District Magistrate concerned and the District Magistrate will decide the same in accordance with the provisions. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, would make it clear that if the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. 9. In the light of the above provisions, as the District Magistrate is the competent authority to look into the objections raised by the petitioner, without adverting into the merits of the case, the 2nd respondent herein is directed to approach the District Magistrate concerned and the said District Magistrate shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act by following the procedures contemplated, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar Abe To : 1. The Director, Transmission Projects, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2. The Superintending Engineer, TNEB, General Construction Circle II, No.A10, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 3. The District Magistrate, Thiruvallur District. 1 cc to Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Advocate, Sr.No.69807 1 cc to Mr.A.Selvendran, Advocate, Sr.No.69826 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.69891 Order in W.P.No.20322 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 GGK {CO} TP/14.10.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/