CHAIRMAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the then TNEB and now TANTRANSCO (Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation) challenging the order of the first respondent dated 18.5.2012 giving direction to the petitioner to erect the Tower and realign the power transmission lines along the approved alignment. The case of the petitioner is that the TANTRANSCO sanctioned a scheme of erection of 400 KV Multi Circuit Transmission Line from North Chennai Thermal Power Station (Stage-II) to Alamathy 400 KV SS for a length of about 34 kms for power evacuation to meet out the power crisis existing in the State of Tamil Nadu vide Board Proceedings No. (Permanent) B.P. (FB) No. 80, dated 11.8.2009 at a total cost of Rs. 168.40 crores. The Government of Tamil Nadu also approved the scheme through G.O. Ms. No. 102, Energy Department, dated 10.12.2009 as provided under Sections 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner is exercising the power, which the Telegraph Authority possess under the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 under the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which has already been conferred upon TNEB under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and as such no notice to the land owners and prior consent of the land owners is required before laying the transmission lines. The scheme was also published in the Daily Newspaper Dinamalar on 27.12.2009 and in The Hindu on 27.12.2009 and in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 24.2.2010 for general information to the public. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already invested about 150 crores for the said project and the project has to be completed to eliminate the power crisis existing in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the petitioner, the work is in the final stage and foundation work has been completed in all 114 locations and tower erection has been completed in 110 locations, that means, the work has been completed for about 32 kms out of 34 kms.

(2.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent raised objections for erection of towers through their patta lands bearing Survey Nos. 77, 73, 74, 64, 65, 61, 59, 15, 14, 13, 12, 5, 4, 156, 155, 154 and 171 in Athipattu Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District on 27.9.2010 and the same was suitably replied on 14.10.2010 expressing non-feasibility of deviation of overhead transmission line. The second respondent thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 10644 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.4.2011 giving direction to the petitioner Board to approach the District Collector and on such application being made the District Collector was directed to consider the issue raised by the Board and pass appropriate orders as per law. The second respondent thereafter approached the District Collector, Thiruvallur on 10.5.2011 and requested to consider its objections as per Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The District Collector conducted enquiries and sought for additional particulars from the Revenue Officials and the Officers of the Board, which were also submitted. However, the District Collector passed the impugned order on 18.5.2012 ordering deviation of the route and refused to grant permission to enter into the second respondent's lands. The same is challenged in this writ petition by contending that the District Collector has taken into account the extraneous facts for ordering deviation of route, which is impermissible; that the District Collector has no power to order deviation of line, which is not feasible; that the District Collector cannot decide technical feasibility of the route; and that, the deviation of the route will cause additional expenditure of Rs. 7 crores to the State exchequer, which will be a time consuming process and will hamper power evacuation process, among other things.

(3.) The second respondent has filed counter affidavit justifying the order of the first respondent/District Collector stating that the District Collector has got power to order deviation of route in a given case and if the power lines are drawn in a deviated route, the lands of the second respondent can be utilised for locating Conveyor Corridor with Container Terminal for import and export of dry and liquid cargos and Ennore port will be affected and if the Container Terminal is allowed to come, it will be an unique development and will give big boost to the State economy, which will generate job for more than 10,000 youths in the State. For getting permission under the SEZ Act, 2005, there cannot be any public road, electrical lines, etc., cutting across the site. The second respondent thereby justified the order of the first respondent and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.