Disposed

R.Krishnamurthy v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Nov 2024WP/35354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal and realignment of High Tension towers and wires erected through his land despite his objection, offering to bear shifting costs. The Board's counsel undertook that the representation would be considered by the Chief Engineer, Transmission Project, TANTRANSCO. The Court directed consideration of the representation and final orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Chief Engineer, Transmission Project, TANTRANSCO, Guindy to consider petitioner's representation dated 14.09.2024 and pass final orders within six weeks.

R.Krishnamurthy Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.35354 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.35354 of 2024

¶7

R.Krishnamurthy ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Chengelpattu, Tamil Nadu.

¶10

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

¶11

The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove and realign the High Tension towers and wires in the property of the petitioner situated in Survey Nos.398/2A, 398/2N, 400/1, 400/2, 400/3, 400/4 and 400/5 in Perumbakkam, Nukampalayam Main Road and also to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2024.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajasekar For R1 : Mr.S.Balamurugan Government Advocate

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶15

For R2 & R3 : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar Standing Counsel

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

W.P.No.35354 of 2024

¶18

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 14.09.2024 seeking removal and re-alignment of the High Tension towers and wires in the property of the petitioner situated in Survey Nos.398/2A, 398/2B, 400/1, 400/2, 400/3, 400/4 and 400/5 in Perumbakkam, Nukampalayam Main Road.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the above mentioned property with an extent of 71 cents in survey no.400/1, 63 cents in survey no.400/2, 23 cents in survey No,400/3 and 22 cents out of 42 cents in survey No.400/4 in all totaling 12 acre and 82 cents situated in old No.153 New No,139 Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, originally belonged to M/s.Miracle Enterprises. The said partnership firm was reconstituted by (i) Mrs.Shanthi John Solomon (ii) Krishnamoorthy (petitioner) and (iii) Tishwanth as partners of the firm. It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondents, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, erected high Tension wires and towers in the middle of the property and the same caused inconvenience to the petitioner. Therefore, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶20

W.P.No.35354 of 2024

¶21

petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.09.2024 seeking removal of the

¶22

High Tension wires and Towers installed in his property. The petitioner also expressed his willingness to bear the cost of shifting the towers and the said representation has not been considered till date. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Mr.S.Balamurugan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 2 & 3.

¶24

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s representation will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. The Standing counsel also submits that the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner is the Chief Engineer, Transmission Project, TANTRANSCO, Thiru-Gi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai.

¶25

In view of the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶27

W.P.No.35354 of 2024

¶28

Court is inclined to issue a direction to the Chief Engineer, Transmission

¶29

Project, TANTRANSCO, Thiru-Gi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2024 and pass final orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Registry is directed to mark the copy of the order to the Chief Engineer, Transmission Project, TANTRANSCO, Thiru-Gi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai.

¶30

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶31

No costs.

¶32

28.11.2024

¶33

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order av

¶34

¶35

The District Collector, Chengelpattu, Tamil Nadu.

¶36

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

¶37

The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

¶38

The Chief Engineer,

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶40

4/5

¶41

W.P.No.35354 of 2024

¶42

Transmission Project, TANTRANSCO,

¶43

Thiru-Gi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai.

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P No.35354 of 2024

28.11.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

R.Krishnamurthy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Krishnamurthy 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

M/S.Sri Ponguru Magnesite Mines, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Vupputur Ramesh, Vs The Commissioner

S.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

Indian Railways Mobile Caterers Association (Irmca) Vs Union of India

N.Chandhru @ Vignesh Vs the Commissioner

R.Hassan Ali Akbar Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board