Disposed

Jaffar Ali.a v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC1 Jul 2021WP(MD)/2746/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to direct removal of electric poles damaging banana plantation and to reroute power supply. Court directed third respondent to identify alternate route and share shifting cost equally between petitioner and applicants within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed third respondent to identify alternate route and inform parties of cost within two weeks; cost shall be borne equally by petitioner and fourth and fifth respondents.

Jaffar Ali.a Vs The Superintending Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2746 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2746 of 2021

¶7

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶8

A.Jaffar Ali Vs. 1.The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO No.1 Vallam Road Thanjavur

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance) TANGEDCO Thriuvaiyaru

¶11

3.The Assistant Engineer (Operation & Maintenance) TANGEDCO Thiruvaiyaru

¶12

4.Shanmughanathan

¶13

5.Shanmughasundaram ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the electric poles put up by the respondents 2 and 3 in the petitioner's property namely lands of Nanja and Punja comprised in S.Nos.21/1D, 21/1E, 21/2C and 21/2D of total extent of 2 Acres 59 cents situated at Akkaraipadugai, Kudamurutti, Thiruvalampozhil Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to give electric supply to the lands of the 4^th and 5^th respondents by rerouting and erecting electric poles through their property comprised in S.Nos.21/1A2A, 21/1B and 21/2A to S.NOs.17, 18 and 19.

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondents :Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha for R1 to R3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the complaint made by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner wherein the petitioner has sought for

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.2746 of 2021

¶20

shifting/removing the electric poles and to provide electric supply to the 4^th and 5^th respondents through an alternative route.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject properties measuring an extent of 2 acres and 59 cents and he undertakes banana plantation in the property. According to the petitioner, the electric supply to the 4^th and 5^th respondents is given from an electric post, where the wires virtually go through the plantation and thereby is causing a serious risk to the petitioner. It is stated that due to the low lying wire, on 22.05.2020 at about 2 p.m., there was a spark, which virtually destroyed the entire plantation in the property belonging to the petitioner and thereby the petitioner suffered a loss.

¶22

The petitioner, therefore, once again made a representation to the respondents to provide electricity connection to the 4^th and 5^th respondents through an alternative route. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶24

It was brought to the notice of this Court that the service connection was provided to the 4^th and 5^th respondents in the year 2002 and it cannot be disturbed just because there was a fire accident in the property belonging to the petitioner.

¶25

The learned counsel for the department submitted that there is an alternate route available and the 4^th and 5^th respondents can be provided supply by erecting a pole at the alternate place. However, this cost must be borne out by the parties. If the parties are agreeable to bear the cost, it was submitted that the department is willing to provide electricity supply to the 4^th and 5^th respondents by placing the pole in the alternate route.

¶26

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to strike a balance between the parties, the third respondent is directed to identify the alternate route and inform the petitioner and the 4^th and 5^th respondents about the total cost that will be incurred for shifting the electric pole. This cost shall be borne equally by the petitioner and the 4^th and 5^th respondents. Once the cost is paid, the third respondent shall immediately take steps to shift the electric pole to the alternate route and continue the supply to the 4^th and 5^th respondents. The third respondent shall intimate the petitioner and 4^th and 5^th respondents regarding the cost within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of cost, the shifting of the pole shall take place as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.2746 of 2021

¶30

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (CSIII)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

The Assistant Engineer (Operation & Maintenance) TANGEDCO Thiruvaiyaru

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.2746 of 2021 01.07.2021

¶40

SSS(CO) KB(08.07.2021) 3P 2C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Jaffar Ali.a v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaffar Ali.a v. The Superintending Engineer

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

Jailani Beevi.K Vs the District Collector

Rahamathunnisha Beevi.M Vs the Managing Director

Murugesan.a Vs the District Collector

Deepa Amutha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Palanivel Rajan.K.P.S Vs the Regional Manager

Praveen.J Vs the Regional Manager