In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 31.7.2017 Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI Writ Appeal No.865 of 2017 & CMP.No.11956 of 2017 1.Ramasamy.M.
2.Kaliyan.M Appellants Vs
1. The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, TANTRANSCO, Tiruchirapalli-20.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Transmission Line Construction, Villupuram-605602.
3. The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Transmission Line Construction, Villupuram.
605602.
4. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ...Respondents APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.3.2017 made in W.P.No.6321 of 2017.
For Appellants : Sri.V.Manohar For Respondents 1 to 3: Sri.M.Varunkumar For Respondent-4 : Mr.P.Sivashanmugasundaram, SGP JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) Mr.M.Varunkumar, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.P.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for the fourth respondent.
2. This writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioners, whose writ petition in W.P.6321 of 2017 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 15.3.2017.
3. There is hardly any doubt that the writ petition has been instituted only in the year 2017 challenging the communication sent upon 01.11.2012 by the first respondent – the Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, TANTRANSCO, Tiruchirapalli-20. It will be appropriate to notice that earlier, the same petitioners have instituted W.P.No.25623 of 2012 in this Court. By an order passed on 01.11.2012, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the first respondent to deal with the representation said to have been submitted by the writ petitioners on 12.8.2011 on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is in pursuance of the said order, the Superintending Engineer has considered the matter and communicated the decision taken on the representation submitted by the writ petitioners through the impugned order dated 01.11.2012.
4. It is brought out in the impugned order that to overcome electrical energy shortage in the State, alternative power generating mechanism has been contemplated. Consequently, necessary permission has been accorded for generating power by consuming the begasse generated by Kallakurichi Cooperative Sugar Mill-II at Kachirapalayam village. The power, thus, generated has to be evacuated to 110 KV Power Station situated at Kallakurichi (Sadayanpattu) and for purpose of this transmission, 26 towers by the shortest route have been planned to be erected.
5. Accordingly, the necessary designs and plans are drawn. Objecting to such towers passing through the land belonging to the writ petitioners, they submitted representations and also instituted the writ petitions in this Court, including the present one, out of which, this writ appeal arises.
6. If a design has been drawn, by which, the power generated can be evacuated to the Sub-Station, no exception can be drawn thereto. While drawing any such plans, the shortest route and to the extent possible, the straightest route will be picked up. Further, the normal blow of wind direction is also taken into account and consideration to prevent any untoward snapping of the power lines firstly causing disruption to transmission of power and also likely to cause harm, hardship and danger to the human beings and the animals.
7. Therefore, if plans are drawn by technically competent personnel, the Courts have hardly any scope to interfere in such a technical subject. Further, to set right any such impropriety for the plans so drawn for laying the electrical lines by erecting towers, proceedings under Article 226 of The Constitution of India are ill-suited, as, such questions depend upon a proper analysis of evidence collected, both oral and documentary. Proceedings under Article 226 of The Constitution of India are ill-suited, as seldom oral evidence is collected in such proceedings though collection of oral evidence is not forbidden in that sense to be done by the High Court under Article 226.
8. More than anything else, what strikes us is the reason, which appealed to the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioners are conscious of their rights and their objections. They submitted representations raising he objections on 12.8.2011. The reply thereto was received by them through the impugned order dated 01.11.2012. Nearly five years thereafter the writ petition has been instituted in this Court. For sheer delay and laches, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained. In our view, the learned Single Judge is right in not entertaining the writ petition. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge to entertain the writ petition cannot be faulted at all.
9. Hence, we see no merit in this writ appeal and it stands accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, the above CMP is also dismissed.
31.7.2017 Speaking Order Index : Yes Internet : Yes RS NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J AND M.DHANDAPANI,J RS To
1. The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, TANTRANSCO, Tiruchirapalli-20.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Transmission Line Construction, Villupuram-605602.
3. The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Transmission Line Construction, Villupuram-605602.
4. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
WA.No.865 of 2017 & CMP.No.11956 of 2017 31.7.2017