W.A.No.2964 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.2964 of 2021
Hosur Small and Tiny Industries Association
Rep. by its President K.Velmurugan
CP6, SIPCOT Industrial Complex
Phase 2, Hosur 636 109
Krishnagiri District. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director
Electricity Avenue
No.800, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. Superintending Engineer
O/o. Superintending Engineer
Salem Main Road
Krishnagiri.
3. Executive Engineer
O/o. Executive Engineer
Operation & Maintenance
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Opp. to ESI Hospital, SIPCOT
Hosur, Krishnagiri 635 126.
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2964 of 2021
4. Assistant Engineer
Operation & Maintenance
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Opp. to ESI Hospital, SIPCOT
Hosur, Krishnagiri 635 126.
5. Project Officer
Project Office
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu
Hosur 635 126.
6. The Secretary
Industrial Development
Chennai.
[R6 impleaded vide order dated
04.01.2022in CMP No.20093 of 2021]
7. M/s. Ashok Lelyand Limited, Unit II
SIPCOT Phase - II
Hosur 635 109
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
D.Santhi. .. Respondents
[R7 impleaded vide order dated
07.09.2022 in CMP No.2640 of 2022]
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 30.09.2021 made in W.P.No.11021 of 2021.
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2964 of 2021
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Mr.S.C.Vishwanth
For the Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.Madhusudhanan &
Ms.T.Reena Thomas
for Respondents 1 to 4
Mr.M.Marthikeyan
for Respondent - 5
Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.Alagu Gowtham
Government Advocate
for Respondent - 6
Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
for Respondent - 7
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The writ appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 30.09.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant Association was disposed of giving liberty to the second respondent to proceed further with the erection of tower for the supply of __________ Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2964 of 2021 electricity, after providing sufficient space for the Members of the appellant Association to access the building.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that erection of tower in front of the building would cause hindrance to have access to the building and therefore, a request was made to lay an underground cable instead of erecting tower. Since the request was turned down without assigning any reason, the appellant was left with no option but to prefer the appeal.
3. Reference to the photographs of the place where tower is going to be erected has been made to indicate the hindrance to access the building as the tower would be erected just in front of the building belonging to the appellant.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that by erecting tower, no hindrance would be created to access the building of the appellant. It is submitted that five towers have already been __________ Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2964 of 2021 erected, except the one in question to regulate the supply of electricity to the industries in the area in question. In fact, the supply of electricity was 22 KV and now, it has been raised to 110 KV and therefore, it is necessary to erect towers. The electricity thereupon would be supplied not only to one industry, but to all nearby industries, villages and the residents in the vicinity. Thus, the decision to erect towers was taken for the public cause.
5. It is further submitted that the appellant would not be affected by the erection of tower, as the photographs enclosed indicate the distance between the tower and the building to be more than 16 feet. However, on account of the observation made by the Division Bench in its order dated 02.02.2022, the respondents are unable to complete the work of erection of left out one tower.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.
7. The respondents are entitled to erect tower for bringing 110 __________ Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2964 of 2021 KV line to regulate the electricity supply to the industries in the area, apart from others. Five towers have already been erected and on account of the observation made by this Court in its order dated 02.02.2022, the remaining one could not be completed.
8. According to the appellants, the high tension line can be regulated by bringing it underground. However, the request for it has been rejected by the respondents without assigning any reason and, therefore, the writ petition was filed. The question of bringing high tension line underground, by eliminating the tower, cannot be decided by this Court, as it can be only on the advice of the technical team, which has turned down the proposal made by the appellant.
9. In view of the above, we dispose of this appeal with a direction to the official respondents to take further advice of the technical team and find out the possibility of laying underground cable to regulate the supply of 110 KV to the industries and to the consumer in the vicinity and in case, it is found feasible, the __________ Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2964 of 2021 appellant has agreed to bear the cost and accordingly, it may be indicated to the appellant. If the advice of the technical team comes otherwise showing no possibility of laying underground cable, then the respondents would be permitted to erect tower to complete the work of 110 KV line by maintaining the distance from the building as indicated by them in the photographs i.e. distance of 4.4 m. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.20093 of 2021 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
07.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
kpl
To
1. The Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Electricity Avenue, No.800, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.
2. Superintending Engineer O/o. Superintending Engineer Salem Main Road, Krishnagiri.
3. Executive Engineer O/o. Executive Engineer Operation & Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board __________ Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2964 of 2021 Opp. to ESI Hospital, SIPCOT Hosur, Krishnagiri 635 126.
4. Assistant Engineer Operation & Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Opp. to ESI Hospital, SIPCOT Hosur, Krishnagiri 635 126.
5. Project Officer Project Office State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Hosur 635 126.
6. The Secretary Industrial Development Chennai.
__________ Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2964 of 2021 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND N.MALA, J.
kpl W.A.No.2964 of 2021 07.09.2022 __________ Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis