Disposed

Lakshmi Narayanan a v. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution)

Madras HC4 Aug 2025WP(MD)/21223/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged TANGEDCO's order rejecting removal of an electric pole erected on his land without consent and requiring him to bear shifting cost. The court held such erection improper under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and directed a fresh order in light of the Electricity Ombudsman's decision within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; third respondent directed to pass fresh order within four weeks per Ombudsman decision.

Lakshmi Narayanan a Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

A.Lakshmi Narayanan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Othakadai, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Executive Engineer (East), TANGEDCO, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Distribution), Office of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Karupayurani, Sivagangai Road, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶13

4.Vanjinathan ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the thirrd respondent in Ka.No. VuMiPo/Pagir/Karup/Va.Aa/Ko.Pothu/A.No.99/1 dated 08.06.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the electric post in the property in S.No.22/2A of Sakkimangalam Village, Madurai North Taluk and remove the

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

¶18

electric wires passing through the Plot Nos.3, 4 and 5 of said Survey Number at the cost of the respondents Nos.1 to 3.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Tamilmani For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the third respondent.

¶22

2 . By the said impugned order, the request of the petitioner for the removal

¶23

of an electric pole installed on the petitioner's land has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is required to (i) submit an online application, and (ii) bear the cost of shifting the pole under the Depositors Contribution Works Scheme.

¶24

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a retired Accountant from Entyce, a Government Textile Mill in Sivagangai District, was unaware that the respondents had installed an electric pole on his

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

¶28

property. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with his relatives, had purchased the land as early as in the year 1980 and the pole was installed without obtaining prior permission from him or any of the co-owners. The said land, along with the lands of his relatives, is located contiguously.

¶29

4 . It is further submitted that the erection of the electric pole amounts to an encroachment on private property, without due process or notice to the affected landowners, and is therefore illegal.

¶30

5 . In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on paragraphs 7.4, 7.8, and 8.2 of the order dated 03.07.2020, passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman in A.T.Vellayadevan vs. Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Pudukottai [Appeal No.65 of 2019], which read as follows:-

¶31

''7.4. NkYk; jdpegUf;F kpd; ,izg;G ju jdJ gl;lh epyj;ij Mf;fpuikg;G nra;jJ kl;Lky;yhky; DCW Kiwapy; khw;wpj; ju &.50>000/- tiu nrythFk; vd;W $wpajhf njuptpj;Js;shu;. kpd; gfpu;khd tpjp njhFg;gpd;gb g.G+tofdplk; jd; topf;fhd cupkk; fbjk; kpd;thupak; Nfl;L ngw;wpUf;f Ntz;Lk; vdTk; Mifahy; jdJ xg;Gjy; ngwhky; el;l kpd; fk;gj;ij

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

¶35

mfw;wp khw;W topg;ghij mikj;J rupnra;a Ntz;bAs;shu;.

¶36

7.8. ,jd; %yk; xU jdpahUila gl;lh epyj;jpy;

¶37

kpd;fk;gNkh my;yJ kpd;ghijiaNah epWTk;nghOJ ,e;jpa njhiyj;njhlu;G rl;lj;jpd;gb Kd;mDkjpNah my;yJ e;l<Nlh mspf;fg;glNtz;Lk; vd;W njupa tUfpwJ. ,t;tof;fpy; Nky;KiwaPl;lhsu; mtUf;F nrhe;jkhd gl;lh epyj;jpy;jhd; kpd;fk;gk; epWtg;gl;Ls;sjhf njuptpj;Js;shu;. vjpu;kDjhuu;fSk; mij kWf;ftpy;iy. vdNt Nky;KiwaPl;lhsupd; Nfhupf;ifahd mtuJ xg;Gjy; ngwhky; el;l kpd; fk;gj;ij mfw;wp khw;W topg;ghij mikj;J rupnra;a NfhupAs;sJ vdf;F Vw;gilajhf cs;sJ. vdNt> Nky;KiwaPl;lhsupd; gl;lh epy vz;.1821> nrl;bf;fhL tUtha; fpuhkk; Gy vz;.151/2y; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;s kpd;fk;gj;ijkhw;W topg;ghijapy; vjpu;kDjhuu; jq;fSila nrytpy; NtW ,lj;jpw;F khw;wp mikf;f Ntz;Lk; vd jPu;T nra;ag;gLfpwJ.

¶38

8.2 Nkw;fz;l jPu;it epiwNtw;wpaJ njhlu;ghd mwpf;ifia ,e;j Miz fpilf;fg;ngw;w 45 ehl;fSf;Fs; rku;g;gpf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;juT ,lg;gLfpwJ.''

¶39

6 . Defending the stand of the respondents, the learned Standing Counsel

¶40

submits that the petitioner has not been vigilant. It is submitted that the electric pole in question was erected as early as in the year 2014, at a time when the surrounding lands were not well developed. It is further submitted that the removal and re-routing of the said pole from the petitioner's land would involve

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

¶44

substantial additional cost, as multiple lines are passing through it.

¶45

7 . Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that the erection of the electric pole on the petitioner's land without obtaining his prior consent is improper and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In fact, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman, in the aforementioned order dated 03.07.2020 in Appeal No.65 of 2019 ( A.T.Vellayadevan vs. Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Pudukottai ), has also censured such conduct on the part of the Electricity Board.

¶46

8 . Considering the same, the third respondent is directed to pass a fresh order, in the light of the decision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman in A.T.Vellayadevan vs. Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Pudukottai [Appeal No.65 of 2019], after taking into account the specific facts of the petitioner's case. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

9 . The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶48

NCC : Yes / No 04.08.2025

¶49

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

¶52

Index : Yes / No smn2

¶53

To:-

¶54

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Othakadai, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶55

2.The Executive Engineer (East), TANGEDCO, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶56

3.The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Distribution), Office of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Karupayurani, Sivagangai Road, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶57

Page 6 of 7

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025

¶60

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶61

smn2

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.21223 of 2025