UMAYAMBIKAI MILLS P LTD Vs. PAULRAJ NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 57 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, at Sivaganga, is the petitioner and the prayer in the petition is for quashing of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the abovesaid petition.

(2.) The petitioner owns a textile mill. In order to give supply of electricity to the petitioner Mills, the second respondent, viz., The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board installed electric posts in the land now owned by the first respondent herein. At the time the posts were planted, the land was owned by the predecessor in-title of the first respondent. The said predecessor filed a suit, O.S. No. 188 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Sattur and prayed for an injunction, but failed. Thereafter, the first respondent has purchased the land. The second respondent then fixed electric wires to the posts and supplied energy to the petitioner. This was objected to by the first respondent and he filed a petition in Crl. M. P. No. 57 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and contended that the planting of posts in his land and the fixation of electric wires to the posts so planted was without his consent under section 1 2 (2) of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act) and as such, the petitioner and the second respondent should be asked to remove the electric wires. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has accepted the contention of the first respondent and ordered removal of the wires within fifteen days and further directed that if his order was not carried out, the first respondent himself own remove the wires and recover the cost of removal from the petitioner and the second respondent. It is against that order the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) Mr. Vedantham Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not in accordance with law and therefore, the order should be set aside. The counsel referred to the provisions contained in sections 12 to 16 of the Electricity Act and also to section 51 of the Act. He argued that section 51 was of an overriding nature and in view of the fact that the State Government had empowered the second respondent to carry out all works necessary for supply and distribution of electric energy to the various consumers, the first respondent was not entitled to rely upon section 12 of the Act and raise an objection that without his consent the second respondent cannot validly instal electric lines over his land and transmit power to the petitioner Mill. The counsel further stated that the predecessor in title of the first respondent had filed a suit in civil Court and sought to obtain an order of injunction to prevent the second respondent from installing electric poles in his land, but the attempt proved unsuccessful, and in such circumstances, the first respondent is bound by the order of the Civil Court. The posts having been installed, the second respondent is entitled to draw lines over the posts and supply electric energy to the petitioner Mill through those lines.