Dismissed

P.Narayanasamy v. the Chief Engineer

Madras HC12 Sept 2019WP/27025/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed as PIL challenging approval for erection of 110 KV DC Line alleging obstruction of water bodies and displacement of trees. Court found petitioner's apprehensions unfounded based on assurances from the transmission corporation to minimize inconvenience.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed subject to observation that the respondent must ensure the interests of agriculturists are not affected to a greater extent during execution.

P.Narayanasamy Vs the Chief Engineer — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 12.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶7

WP.No.27025/2019 & WMP.No.26414/2019

¶8

P.Narayanasamy .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Engineer Civil Transmission TANTRANSCO, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer Transmission Line Construction TRANTRANSCO, Housing Board Complex, Krishnagiri. 3.The District Collector Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 27.06.2019 of the petitioner regarding suspension of the work of ''erection of 110 KV DC line on DC Towers with panthar conductor for making LILO of the Hosur Zuzuvadi Bagalur 110 KV feeder or Sevaganapalli 110 KV SS'' pursuant to profile approval of the 1^st respondent in memo No.CE/C/TR/SF/CII/TR/EEC/A3/F. Profile/D.862/18 dated 26.10.2018 and to further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to desist from proceeding further with the above work, till the considering of representation and passing of orders therein within a limited time frame.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gajapathy Krishnan For RR3&4 : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Spl.GP

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶13

(1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4.

¶14

(2)This writ petition is styled as a Public Interest Litigation and is filed by the Zonal Secretary of Communist Party of India, Hosur Zone.

¶15

(3)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the office of the Chief Engineer/Civil/Transmission/Chennai-2, viz., the 2^nd respondent herein, has accorded approval for erection of 110 KV DC Line and DC Towers with Panthar Conductor, for making LILO of Hosur Zuzuvadi Bagalur 110 KV feeder or Sevaganapalli 110/33 KVSS. The said profile is approved subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

''I.A minimum ground clearance of 6.10m must be ensured throughout the length of the line. Sufficient vertical clearance for cart track, road crossing and National Highways to be ensured as per Memo No.CE/C/TR/SE/CII/TR/EEC/A3/F, Clearance / D.222 / 2014 dated 28.04.2014. II.A minimum required horizontal clearance of 12.20m for trees on either side must be ensured throughout the line. III.Care shall be taken regarding the type of foundation [Dry/Wet] depending on the actual site conditions. IV.A minimum vertical clearance of 2.75 must be ensured between the existing LT/HT and 110 KV Lines. 2.The salient features of the lines are as below:a.Name of the line : Erection of 110KV DC line on DC Towers with Panther conductor by making LILO of HosurZuzuvadi-Bagalur feeder at proposed Sevaganapally 110/33KV SS'' b.Route Length : 5,995 Kms c.Conductor : ACSR Panther Conductor[30/3.00mm and7/3.00mm] d.Earth Wire : 7/3.55 mm GL - HCR+ 06 Nos. - KCR 02 Nos. KCR with Addl.

¶17

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

¶18

Cross Arm 03 Nos. - KCR+3 05 Nos. KCR+3 with addl. - Cross arm 01 No. - KCR+6 01 No. KC[O]+3 with addl. - Cross Arm 03 Nos. KC[O]+6 with addl. - Cross sq.arm 02 Nos. - CZ[N]+6 04 Nos. - DD[N]+6 01 No. - DD[N]+9 04 Nos. - QD+3 01 No. --------------Total 33 Nos. --------------Details of Crossings -NILTapping location :Between Loc.36 and 37 of Hosur – Zuzuvadi-Bagalur 110 KV feeder. The approved profile and tower schedule are enclosed herewith. The receipt of the same may be acknowledged to the Superintending Engineer/Civil-II/Transmission, Chennai-2.''

¶19

(4)The Communist Party of India, Hosur Unit, opposing the erection of 110 KV DC Line and DC Towers, organised an agitation on 19.03.2019 and it is their grievance that the said line is taken to provide energy to Exide Battery and in the process, the water body to Chockanathapuram water Tank, viz., Rajakaalvaai, is being obstructed and that apart, very many trees have also been uprooted and as a consequence, the agriculturists are affected. The jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, viz.,the 4^th respondent herein, conducted a Peace Committee Meeting on 20.06.2019 and the proceedings relating to the said Peace Committee Meeting is made available at page No.13 of the Typed Set of Documents in Na.Ka.No.1570/2019/A1. The 4^th respondent elicited the response of the agitators, especially, the petitioner herein as well as the response of the TANGEDCO Officials. The TANGEDCO officer, who participated in the Peace Committee Meeting would state that while erecting the line, necessary care has been taken not to damage the agricultural lands as well as the residences and that the water will flow through ''warry poramboke'' [thhp g[wk;nghf;F ] and necessary permission has also been accorded by the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation and that apart, the establishment of power line is to ease the difficulties of the domestic consumers.

¶20

(5)The primordial grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while erecting the power line, necessary

¶21

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

¶22

precaution should be taken to see that no inconvenience be caused to the agriculturists and the water way should not be obliterated and in that event, the agriculturists may not be affected.

¶23

(6)This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶24

(7)Admittedly, the necessary approval has been accorded for erection of the said Transmission Line and in the Peace Committee Meeting conducted by the 4^th respondent, the concern expressed by the petitioner has also been taken into consideration and the response of the 2^nd respondent was also elicited wherein, assurance has been given that while erecting the power line, least inconvenience will be caused to the residents as well as to the agriculturists and that apart, it is for improving the industrial climate and also to help the domestic consumers.

¶25

(8)It appears that the decision taken in the Peace Committee Meeting is not agreeable to the petitioner.

¶26

(9)In the light of the assurance given by the 2^nd respondent in the Peace Committee Meeting, this Court is of the considered view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this writ petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, is unfounded and this Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that in the absence of erection of power lines, the industrialisation of the State is bound to suffer and in that event, there is a likelihood of rise in unemployment which may not augur well for the welfare of the State. However, the 2^nd respondent shall see that the interest of the agriculturists may not be affected to a greater extent and also take into consideration, their apprehension/fear while erecting the power lines.

¶27

(10)The writ petition stands dismissed subject to the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar

¶30

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Chief Engineer Civil Transmission TANTRANSCO, Chennai 600 002.

¶31

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

¶32

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer Transmission Line Construction TRANTRANSCO, Housing Board Complex, Krishnagiri.

¶33

3.The District Collector Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶34

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶35

+1cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras SR.78935
WP.No.27025/2019
PPA(CO)
CB(07/11/2019)

¶36

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

P.Narayanasamy v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Narayanasamy v. the Chief Engineer

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

S.Deepashri Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Biju Kumar, Vs Secretary to Government

Sarojinidevi Vs The Union of India

Rajaravindran, Vs The District Collector

K.Sadasivam Vs The District Collector

S.Muthukumar Vs The Chief Secretary