E.Harichandran Vs the Superintending Engineer

vz;/348-24 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to return the amount of Rs.2,70,161/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only) to the petitioner along with 6% interest.

¶22

: For petitioner Mr. G.Dilipkumar For Respondents : Mr. L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶25

“To call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent relating to the impunged order dated

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.22784 of 2025

¶29

27.11.2024 in fh/vz;/c/br/bgh-, & g-bg/gh-

¶30

nfh/g[fhu;-vz;/348-24 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to return the amount of Rs.2,70,161/(Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only) to the petitioner along with 6% interest.”

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that the land measuring an extent

¶32

of 2 cents in S.No.560, bearing Door No.82, Panapakkam Village, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District, belonged to one P.A.Vijayakrishnan, who had purchased the same on 16.03.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner’s son Venkatasubramani, purchased the property from P.A.Vijayakrishnan, under a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2023. Eversince the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶33

The petitioner would submit that after the purchase, he had put

¶34

up a fence around the property to protect it from encroachments. It was during the course of fencing the property that the petitioners had come to know about errection of electricity transformer in their property. 3/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.22784 of 2025

¶37

Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the 2^nd respondent to remove

¶38

the transformer and for which purpose, an application was made to the

¶39

2^nd respondent.

¶40

The petitioner would submit that the 2^nd respondent gave an estimated cost of Rs.2,28,950/-, together with GST of Rs.41,111/- for shifting the transformer. The petitioner would further submit that the 2^nd respondent did not allow them either to put fence nor to remove the transformer. During the maintenace work of the transformer, the respondents further failed to remove waste materials from the land. Therefore, having no other option the petitioner requested the 2^nd respondent to reduce the cost. However, the same was not considered.

¶41

Thereafter, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.2,70,161/- to the 2^nd respondent by way of a demand draft dated 20.06.2023 and the 2^nd respondent shifted the electricity transformer from the petitioner’s land on 27.10.2023. Thereafter, on enquiry the petitioner came to learn that the electricity transformer had been installed in their premises for over a decade without a consent of the owner and the respondents had 4/8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.22784 of 2025

¶44

also not acquried the lands.

¶45

Therefore, the petitiner’s son made a representation to the 2^nd respondent for refund of the cost which was rejected. Once again, a representation was made on 23.10.2024, which was also rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶46

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the

¶47

records.

¶48

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner had dug a pit near the transformer with an intent to ensure that the transformer would topple down. Thereafter, when the workers of the respondent corporation had attempted to straighten the same the petitioner had physically obstructed the workmen and had also used unparlimentary words which has resulted in complaint being lodged against the petitioner on 24.08.2023, before the jurisdictional Police Station. On an intervention of the police, the respondent had agreed to receive demand draft and on receiving the same the transformer had 5/8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.22784 of 2025

¶51

also been removed and relocated.

¶52

Even according to the petitioner, the transformer had been in

¶53

existence for well over 10 years and as per the regulations, the cost of shifting has to be borne by the consumer and therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed particularly when the petitioner has purchased the property knowing fully well about the existence of the transformer on the subject land.

¶54