Madras High Court
Hosur Small And Tiny Industries ... vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 7 September, 2022
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
__________
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
__________
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
__________
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
__________
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
__________
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.
__________
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
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
