Disposed

K.Shanmugam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC6 Jun 2018WP/12574/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL challenging the connection of new high tension towers, the High Court refused to grant an injunction, citing lack of technical expertise. Instead, it directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to constitute a committee of senior engineers to examine tower safety and carry out periodic checks.

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board directed to constitute a Committee of Senior Engineers to examine tower installations and carry out periodical checks for public safety.

K.Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.06.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Ms.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶7

W.P. No.12574 of 2018
and W.M.P.No.14730 of 2018
K.Shanmugam .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by The Principal Secretary,
TNEB, Energy Dept., Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
N.K.K.P.R.R.Maligai, No.844,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The District Collector,
Erode, Erode District.
4.The Chief Engineer, Lines,
TNEB Complex, Thennur,
Trichy 620 017.
5.The Chief Engineer (Distribution),
Erode Region, 948, EVN Road,
Erode-9.
6.The Superintending Engineer,
General Construction Circle,
182, Dr.Subbarayan Road,
Tatabad, Coimbatore 641 012. .. Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to give connection neither by connecting the High Tension Electric Tower No.179 A located in between Tower No.179 and 180 with the tower No.172 to 179 nor with the new line from the other towers till the disposal of the writ petitions pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for dismantling the High Tension Electric Tower No.172 to 179 located at Erode Town, Erode District, in the Electricity Supply line, viz., Mettur Barrage IV to Erode based on the recommendations made by the respondents and also based on the petitioner representation dated 07.05.2018 forthwith.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan, Addl.G.P. For RR 1 and 3 : Mr.Abdul Saleem for RR2, 4 to 6 * * * * * O R D E R (Made by Ms.Indira Banerjee, Chief Justice)

¶11

This writ petition by way of public interest has been filed by a resident of Erode seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to connect the high tension electric tower No.179 A located in between Tower Nos.179 and 180 with Tower Nos.172 to 179 and also not to install any new line from the other towers till the disposal of W.P.Nos.32083 of 2017 and 12318 of 2018 pending in this Court.

¶12

2.It is the case of the petitioner that high tension electric line tower no.179 was erected by the respondents in 1937 in between Barrage IV, Mettur and Erode, for transmission of 110 KV electricity.

¶13

3.According to the petitioner, the tower originally installed as early as in 1930 to transmit 66 KV of electricity and later, in 1953, the capacity was increased to 110 KV. According to the petitioner, the residents of Edayankattuvalasu, Municipal Colony, Erode Town, Veerappan Chatiram and Peria Semur Village, Perundurai Road, Erode Taluk, are living under the high tension electric line for the past 50 years.

¶14

4.On the face of the averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the residents have been residing for the past 50 years, whereas the towers were constructed about 87 to 88 years ago. The high tension lines were already in existence when the residents started residing by making construction in the areas in question.

¶15

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

¶16

5.Safety of citizens is undoubtedly non-negotiable. Measures for safety have to be taken. At the same time, electricity is a very basic amenity of modern living. It is indispensable for agriculture, for industry, for trade and commerce and also for residential/domestic use.

¶17

6.In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondent authorities filed in W.P.No.12318 of 2018, it is stated that originally the Erode to Mettur Feeder was commissioned as 66 KV line in the year 1937, later, in 1952-53, the said line was converted to 110 KV line with adequate ground and vertical clearance and after the commissioning of Barrage IV, the feeder was re-named as 110 KV Erode-Barrage IV Feeder. According to the respondents, for ensuring safety as also supply of uninterrupted power, the transmission line is periodically checked. It is checked every month and pre-monsoon inspections are carried out every year. It is emphatically asserted by the respondents that towers were erected when the land was lying vacant and constructions were carried on thereafter without adhering to the requisite vertical and horizontal clearances. The respondents contend that dismantling of the tower is not technically feasible, as the same would interfere with uninterrupted power supply.

¶18

7.In paragraph 5, it is stated that the proposal of the respondents to construct a new tower between Tower Nos.179 and 180 was related to the proposal to construct a Grade Separator of Erode-Perundurai-Kangeyam road near Government Hospital, Erode. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Projects, had, by a letter dated 04.10.2017, requested that the towers be shifted in order to carry on the road works. However, considering the importance of continuance of the existing tower line, the Highways Department paid Rs.27,28,640/- towards increasing the ground clearance of the existing line.

¶19

8.It is stated that the erection of additional tower for increasing the ground clearance would in no way affect the stability of the existing towers, whereas if the height of the existing towers are increased, the same might cause damage to the existing towers, resulting in risk to life and property.

¶20

9.This Court neither has the technical expertise nor the know-how to adjudicate technical issues of safety in the matter of erection of towers to connect high tension lines. Considering that high tension lines have been existence for over eight decades and considering the assertion in the affidavit that measures are taken by the respondents to ensure safety, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for a direction not to connect the high tension towers.

¶21

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

¶22

10.It is directed that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall constitute a Committee of Senior Engineers to examine the tower installations mentioned in the writ petition and also carry out periodical checks to ensure that the towers and/or high tension lines do not pose any risk to the people of the locality.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed with the aforesaid direction. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.14730 of 2018 is closed.

¶24

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu, TNEB, Energy Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
N.K.K.P.R.R.Maligai, No.844,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The District Collector,
Erode, Erode District.
4.The Chief Engineer, Lines,
TNEB Complex, Thennur, Trichy 620 017.
5.The Chief Engineer (Distribution),
Erode Region, 948, EVN Road, Erode-9.
6.The Superintending Engineer,
General Construction Circle,
182, Dr.Subbarayan Road,
Tatabad, Coimbatore 641 012.
+1cc to Mr.M.Vijay Anand, Advocate, S.R.No.35199

¶25

W.P.No.12574 of 2018

¶26

CS/20/06/18

¶27

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

K.Shanmugam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shanmugam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Polaris Consulting & Servi

M/S.Carborandum Universal Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Govi Kalvirayar, president Vs The Director of Panchayat

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Vs M/S Baby Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. K. Rajendran Vs M/S. Tamil Nadu State

S.Sethupathy Vs The District Collector