Disposed

Swami Matriculation School v. Tamil Nadu Generation and

Madras HC9 Dec 2015WP/33686/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging an order directing a school to remove a transformer. The Court observed that the petitioner's citizenship status was disputed but remitted the matter to authorities for consideration after hearing all parties and maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's reply, give opportunity of hearing, and pass orders on merits within six weeks; status quo maintained until such orders.

Swami Matriculation School Vs Tamil Nadu Generation… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :: 09-12-2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.33686 OF 2015

¶6

Swami Matriculation School,
rep.by its Correspondent V.Govindasamy,
Vannamputhoor,
Keezhapalur P.O.,
Ariyalur Taluk and District ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(TANGEDCO)
rep.by its Superintending Engineer,
Ariyalur - 621 704.
2.Assistant Engineer (O&M),
TANGEDCO,
Keezhapalur,
Ariyalur.
3.Chairman,
Thirumanoor Panchayt Union,
Ariyalur 621 705.
4.Srinivasan
5.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-2. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records from the second respondent and quash the show cause notice issued by the second respondent vide Letter No.AE/TNEB(O&M)/Keezhapalur/Ko.kattu/A.No.294-1, dated 09.10.2015, and consequently to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from removing the transformer SS.10 from the petitioner's patta land in S.No.459/4B, as per G.O.Ms.No.131 (School Education (B) Department, dated 10.08.2006,Annexure IX (Sl.No.10).

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesulu

¶10

For respondents 1,2 &5 : Mr.P.Gunaraj

¶11

For respondent 3 : Mr.S.Diwakar, Addl.Govt.Pleader.

¶12

For respondent 4 : Mr.V.Vignesh

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner is an educational institution and it is aggrieved by an order passed by the second respondent, directing them to shift the transformer within the school premises, stating it to be a traffic hazard. Initially, the transformer was erected adjoining the school compound wall, and, it appears, that the petitioner paid for cost of the transformer, since the petitioner is the sole beneficiary of the said transformer.

¶15

The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner, by referring to G.O.Ms.No.131, School Education (B) Department, dated 10.08.2006, by which, the Government has made certain recommendations for electrical safety and it is stated, that no HT Line and Transformers should be located inside or close to the schools.

¶16

In my view, the abovesaid Government Order is of little avail to the case of the petitioner. The objection raised by the third respondent is, that the transformer is causing a traffic hazard. From the photograph produced before this Court, it is seen, that the said transformer is erected adjacent to the compound wall of the school. Revenue authorities say, that the petitioner has encroached into the Government land and erected the compound wall with a width of one metre and length of 42 metres, which fact has been disputed by the petitioner. In any event, this issue has to be sorted out only by the comptent authorities, and not by this Court. Furthermore, the authorities have also to consider the impact of G.O.Ms.No.131, dated 10.08.2006. It is seen, that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the show cause notice, to the second respondent, on 14.10.2015, and the same is now pending consideration before the authority.

¶17

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the reply, dated 14.10.2015, submitted by the petitioner, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the third respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, the second respondent shall take

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

note of G.O.Ms.No.131, dated 10.08.2006. Till such orders are passed by the second respondent, the status quo, which is prevailing as on date, shall be maintained by the parties.

¶20

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.

¶21

-s/d-

¶22

Assistant Registrar

¶23

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
dixit
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
(TANGEDCO)
Ariyalur - 621 704.
2.Assistant Engineer (O&M),
TANGEDCO,
Keezhapalur,
Ariyalur.
3.Chairman,
Thirumanoor Panchayt Union,
Ariyalur 621 705.
4.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-2.
+1 cc to Mr.P.Gunaraj Advocate sr.65908
+1 cc to M/S.Usha Raman Advocate sr.66648
W.P.No.33686 OF 2015
aa31/12/2015

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Swami Matriculation School v. Tamil Nadu Generation and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Matriculation School v. Tamil Nadu Generation and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Jothi Ramalingam Vs the District Collector

M.Chandran, Vs Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation

Smt.Mallika Vs The District Collector

M/S.Ceedeeyes Standard Towers Vs the Collector of Chennai

The Management of Indian Bank, Vs the Presiding Officer, Central

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer