The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of an application to shift an electricity pole. The court held that a recent property purchaser cannot demand removal of an existing pole objected to by a third party without a legal right or statutory obligation on the authority.
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.
W.P(MD)No.343 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.343 of 2022
Sivaji
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District.
3.Velsamy ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent in f.vz;.cnr.ngh/g/fh.Nfh/t.M/Nfh DCW/m vz; .155/21 dated 21.12.2021 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the electricity pole/electricity wires erected in the petitioner's patta land situated at Survey Number 159/58A1A of Kalayarkovil village.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Palanisamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.H.Arumugam for R3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The petitioner applied to the second respondent for shifting of an existing electric pole. The petitioner's application was received but it could be processed as the third respondent raised objections. Therefore, the second respondent informed the petitioner that his application stood rejected. Questioning the same, the writ petition came to be filed.
1/2
W.P(MD)No.343 of 2022
3.It is true that the existence of a electric pole on the running of overhead lines does constitute some kind of hardship for the petitioner. But I cannot sympathise with the petitioner because the petitioner purchased the property in question only in the year 2021. The electric pole in question has been in existence for more than two decades. It is true that the petitioner can request the electricity authorities for shifting of electric pole and redrawing of the electric lines. But then, the petitioner cannot demand the same as matter of right. Only if the authority finds the petitioner's request to be feasible of compliance and there is no objection from any third party, the petitioner's request can be accepted and not otherwise. A Writ of Mandamus can be issued only if the petitioner is having any legal right and the authority is under legal obligation. Such is not the case here. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
// True Copy //
/07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
ias
TO
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District.
+1 CC to M/s.H. ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-28819[F] dated 29/06/2022 )
+1 CC to M/s.S. DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate ( SR-28850[F] dated 29/06/2022 )
W.P(MD)No.343 of 2022 27.06.2022
NA(CO)
GC(07.07.2022) 2P 5C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to remove an electricity pole erected on the petitioner's property when the petitioner is a recent purchaser.
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to the shifting of the electric pole as a matter of right against the objection of a third party.
Sivaji
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board
Velsamy
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
