Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking directions to TANGEDCO to remove and relocate allegedly dangerous electricity poles. Respondents argued it was a personal interest litigation. The Court held the petition was not in public interest and dismissed it.
Petition dismissed, connected writ miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.07.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.11049 of 2017 and WMP No.11998 of 2017
Mr.Blessington ... Petitioner
Vs
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of a writ of mandamus, for a direction based on the representation dated 15.02.2016 and 13.04.2017 to direct the respondent 1 to 3 to immediately remove the post (VEKN:26), which is situated in front of the Plot.1, from the road in veera Vanchinathan 1st street and re installed it in a safer place and also not to alter the placement of the EB Post (VEKN:29) from its original place, as early as possible to avoid the unwanted damages and unaccounted loss to the residents of Veeravanchinathan, 1st Street, Perungudi, Chennai - 600 096.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents: Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar (for R1 to R3) Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO
O R D E R
(Order of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
On 18.07.2019, there was no representation for the writ petitioner. Hence, we passed the following order.
"No representation for the petitioner.
(i) Petitioner along with his family members, are residing at No.8/24, Veera Vanchinathan 1st Street, Perungudi, Chennai, for the last 30 years, and in the said street, the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Perungudi Zone, Chennai, the third respondent has installed 5 nos. of RCC Electricity posts. All the posts are being mounted at an equal distance on the western side
of the road. The power supplies are being given through a flyover cables, which are supported by the RCC Posts.
(ii) Petitioner has further stated that few years ago, the residents, on the Western side of the said street, gradually started to encroach the public road towards the Eastern side. The original breadth of the road, in the street, was much larger, approximately 16 to 18 feet, whereas now it has been shrinking to a 12 feet road and become much congested. It can be easily proved in a naked eye that the EB posts are found 2 feet inside the properties on the Western side.
(iii) Petitioner has submitted that the third respondent had removed some EB post from the original place and rooted them into the road in a most endangered and negligent manner. As it seems a big threat to the public, school children, transporters and the local residents, the petitioner and the other local residents of the area strictly opposed the third respondent's reckless act and requested the third respondent to re-consider about the installation plans. But the third respondent had never heeded to those requests and suggestions made by the petitioner, as well as the other residents of the area, but the third respondent has successfully installed, which proves that the third respondent has not raised objections to the encroachers, on the contra, he has deliberately adjusted and bend the rules to favour the landlords on the western side of the street. It is obviously proved that the third respondent has consciously re routed the flyover power cables under the ground, in order to favour the landlord at Door No.5, of the street, who completely violated and encroached beyond the power lines.
(iv) In these circumstances, the third respondent is again attempting to remove a post, bearing identification No.VEKN:29, which is situated and found inside the plot, bearing Door No.4, and move it into the road and exactly in front of the petitioner’s house. Third respondent has not responded to the request and complaints of the local residents in this regard, but arbitrarily, is carrying the job of reinstallation of the post, without thinking the safety of the residents in the area. Moreover, it is important to mention here that the posts are used to identify the original boundaries of the public common passage in the road, which are now under the
encroachment.
(v) Petitioner has further submitted that moreover, the EB posts, looks so dangerous and are of severe threat to the life of the residents and animals in the nearby area. The small street is almost busy with four wheels, school vans, and other big size vehicles, which are having threat from the new installed EB posts. On few occasions, the vehicles were rubbed with the post in the roads, in the peak hours. Local residents have given several oral reminders on various occasions and written representations to the third respondent on 15/02/2017, in this regard. The same were duly acknowledged by the third respondent, but surprisingly he did not come forward to act as required. Hence, petitioner, by duly representing the other residents of the said area, has sent a legal notice on 18/04/2017, calling upon the respondents to pay attention in the above issue, and to take appropriate and pre cautionary steps to remove the post (VEKN : 26) immediately from the road and re install them in a safer place as they were earlier, and also not to change the placement of the post bearing identification no.VEKN:29, thereby to avoid any unwanted occurrences and accidents. As there was no response, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the relief stated supra.
(i) The LOW TENSION network was established and is being maintained by TANGEDCO Low Tension for feeding supply to the consumer’s premises at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street situated at Perungudi area. This is LOW TENSION Over Head network system which is supported by RCC poles as per the standard design. The LOW TENSION network at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street is supported by 5Nos. RCC poles with proper safety level.
(ii) The Low Tension network was established at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street, at the edge of road, as per the standard design during the period at which area development was taking place at Perungudi area. The erected RCC poles are now available only at the edge of the road and not inside the properties as stated by the petitioner. Matter relating to encroachment and size of the road is to be addressed to the department of local administration by the petitioner.
(iii) TANGEDCO has not removed any RCC poles in the existing Low Tension Network at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street in the past years as per the available office records. The existing Low Tension Network is being maintained as per the standard norms and IE Rules with proper safety measures. TANGEDCO would not compromise on the safety aspects in maintaining network system and no written complaint was received in this office so far about the lack of safety in the existing Low Tension Network system at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street. TANGEDCO was not adding or it has no plan to install any additional network in the existing network system at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street as claimed by the petitioner. TANGEDCO is taking up the periodical maintenance works such as checking of conductors, set right the problem of leaned pole etc. in the existing network system. TANGEDCO is not the authority to raise any objection to the encroachment if any noticed as claimed by the petitioner. TANGEDCO has carried out the conversion of Over Head line into Under Ground Cable System at Plot No.5 to avoid any electrical accident due to unsafely level of Over Head line with the building under Deposit Contribution Work basis as per the Rules. TANGEDCO would not encourage anyone to encroach the land or street but will insist to maintain safety level to the available Over Head lines as per rules.
(iv) TANGEDCO is not attempting to remove the RCC Pole (VEKN.29) as claimed by the petitioner and the same is available at the edge of the road. This pole is not dangerous. No complaint is received from any local residents so far except the objection notice on 19.04.2017 from the petitioner. It is not legally correct to use the TANGEDCO poles as boundary level for public road or common passage in the road. The electricity network poles are being erected as per the design by keeping the safety level of Indian Electricity Rules.
(v) Tmt.M.Veerammal, W/o. Munusamy has submitted an application dated 17.04.2017 requesting to relocate the available pole at the proposed gate of her premises under Deposit Contribution Work basis at No.43, Veeravanchinathan 1st Cross Street which is exactly opposite to the premises of the petitioner. However, the process of the application is stopped and kept pending in TANGEDCO office, as the petitioner is raising objection.
(vi) The residents of Veeravanchinathan 1st Street have not given any oral complaints or written complaints except the objection notice issued by the petitioner on 19.04.2017. The existing pole (VEKN:26) is available only at the edge of the road as well as in the network route. It would not be possible to remove the pole (VEKN:26) from the present location as the road is having narrow space. If the petitioner comes forward to take up the conversion of Overhead line into Under Ground Cable system at the specified location under Deposit Contribution Work basis, TANGEDCO will do the work as per the TNERC rules and as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner has not given any request so far in TANGEDCO office on the above line.
(vii) The existing Low Tension Network available at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street, Perungudi is in good condition with proper safety level. Also, the available poles are in good condition and not giving any threat to the public or transport so far.
(viii) The electricity poles are not to be considered as boundary level for roads or common passage of roads and this is not legally correct. TANGEDCO is not encouraging anyone to do encroachment of land or road as it functions as per the Electricity Act 2003 and maintaining the Networks as per the Indian Electricity Rules.
(ix) The existing poles at Veeravanchinathan 1st Street would not be removed and relocated to road side. However, it can be relocated in the available same network route or it is possible to convert the overhead line into Underground Cable system under Deposit Contribution Work basis as per Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Rules.
(x) TANGEDCO is not taking any steps to relocate the pole (VEKN:29) from its original place which is available in the middle of the proposed gate at plot No.4, Veeravanchinathan 1st Street, Perungudi. However the request application made by Tmt.M.Veerammal, W/o. Munusamy to relocate the pole in the same Network route under Deposit Contribution Work basis is kept pending in TANGEDCO office. Also, no request was made by the petitioner to relocate the pole (VEKN:26) under Deposit Contribution Work basis so far to TANGEDCO office.
(xi) Low Tension Supply is only for the public purpose to give uninterrupted supply to the general public. For the abovesaid reasons, respondent has stated that there is no merit in the above Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
W.P.No.11049 of 2017 and WMP No.11998 of 2017
ssd(co) nr 16/09/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking to relocate electricity poles survives the bar of being a personal interest litigation rather than public interest litigation.
Whether the High Court can dismiss the petition for being a sham exercise in personal litigation.
Whether the petitioners have the cause of action for seeking the redressal of the grievance related to the pole installation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Blessington
Chairman cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO
Chairman (Superintending Engineer), TANGEDCO
Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perungudi Zone
S. MANIKUMAR
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
