Dismissed

K.Boopathy Karthick v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Aug 2020WP(MD)/649/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ forbidding erection of high tension towers on his land. Court disposed petition noting land may be spared but warned private respondents to seek District Magistrate permission under Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 if obstruction occurs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to licensee to seek permission from District Magistrate if obstruction occurs.

K.Boopathy Karthick Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.649 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.08.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.649 of 2020 and

¶4

W.M.P(MD).No. 484 of 2020

K.Boopathy Karthick

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶9

Karur District, Collectorate, Thanthonimalai, Karur.

¶10

2.The Thasildar,

¶11

Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.

¶12

3.The Chief Manager,

¶13

Power Grid Corporation India Limited, 400/230 KV Sub Station,

¶14

K.Paramathi Post, Karur District.

¶15

4.The Chairman/ Managing Director,

¶16

Tamil Nadu General and Distribution, Corporation Limited, 10^th Floor, NPKRR Maligai,

¶17

No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.

¶18

5.M/s.Spring Renewable Energy Private Limited

¶19

Represented by its Director No.001,

¶20

Level G.Pentagon P.S., Magarpatta City,

¶21

Hadapsar,Pune 411 013, Also at, No.105, TNHB Colony, Gandhigramam South, Pasupathipalayam, Karur

¶22

6.M/s.KS.Wind and Renewable India Private Limited

¶23

Represented by its Operation Head

¶24

Having its Corporate Office at D.No.40, Visalakshi Street

¶25

Aisways Garden, Goparasanallur Poonamallee, Chennai 56. ... Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from erecting any electric High Tension Tower or drawing High Tension Electric Lines in S.F.991 & 993 /2 of Gudaloor East Part I Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2019.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh

¶28

For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate For R3 & R4 : Ms.M.Rajeswari For Mr.S.M.S.Jonny Basha For R5 : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan

¶29

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

¶30

1/2

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.649 of 2020

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶34

This writ petition has been filed forbearing the contesting respondent from putting up high tension tower in the petition mentioned land.

¶35

3.It appears that the petitioner's land may be spared. But then the petitioner is not quite sure.

¶36

4.I make it clear that if the private respondent intends to put up any tower on the petition mentioned land and if the petitioner obstructs the same, the fifth respondent has to necessarily move the District Magistrate/first respondent for getting permission in terms of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Regarding the scope and ambit of Section 16 of the Act, I have already dealt with in order dated 07.08.2020 in W.P(MD).No.6319 of 2020. I have also held that if the land owners obstruct or resist, the licensee cannot carry out the works without getting permission from the District Magistrate.

¶37

This writ petition stands disposed of on the same lines. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

Assistant Registrar ()

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶41

Msa

¶42

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶43

¶44

1.The District Collector Karur District, Collectorate Thanthonimalai, Karur.

¶45

2.The Thasildar, Aravakurich Taluk, Karur District.

¶46

SPU(25.08.2020) 2P 3C

¶47

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

¶48

2/2

K.Boopathy Karthick v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Boopathy Karthick v. the District Collector

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

A.Nagalingam Vs Sakkarai Ammal

M. Thangappa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Balamurugan Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

P.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

I.Kumarasamy, Vs the District Collector

Pandiammal Vs the Commissioner Cum Tender Inviting Authority