P SUYAMBULINGADURAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. SUYAMBULINGADURAI, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent, the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Power Energy Resources and the second respondent, the Chief Engineer, N. C. E. S. , Chennai, to take necessary action against the respondents 4 to 7, viz. , Suzlon Wind Form, Enercon (Indian) Limited, N. E. P. C. Wind Mill and N. E. G. Micon Limited, to re-erect the unauthorisedly erected transmission poles to some other location without affecting the safety and convenience of the public.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Dhanakarkulam Panchayat, in which the petitioner functions as Panchayat Vice President, is comprised of 9 villages with 11 ponds, besides the Anuman River. The various firms, the respondents 4 to 7 have commenced installing wind mills on the shoreline of the Panchayat to generate electricity. They have erected transmission poles across the breadth of the river as well as ponds. As the ponds are being used by the village population, the installation of such transmission poles and the transmission lines would have fatal impact on the human population and would cause havoc to neighbouring population as once the monsoon sets in water would force through the river breaking the poles, resulting in the electrocution of the water bed. The people of Dhanakarkulam went in a mass protest against the erection of High Transmission poles in the inner side of 11 tanks. The petitioner as the Vice President of Dhanakarkulam Panchayat reported to the Chief Engineer about the consequences of life and destruction of things and requested to stop the erection of poles. There was no response. Therefore, he filed a petition in W. P. No. 32070 of 2003 reporting about the inaction of the Chief Engineer. The First Bench of this Court by the order dated 19. 9. 2003 directed the Chief Engineer to dispose of his representation within four weeks. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, second respondent, disposed of his representation and sent a letter stating that there is no such unauthorised installation or erection of poles at the river beds. However, he was asked to show any photo proof and exact survey numbers with respect of such unauthorised erection and if it is proved with photos and survey numbers, the same thing would be replaced. In response to the said letter, the petitioner sent a letter on 19. 6. 2004 showing the exact particulars of survey number and the photos. Despite that, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed another petition in W. P. No. 28598 of 2004 as a public interest litigation. Then, by the order dated 5. 10. 2004, the Division Bench of this Court directed the Chief Engineer to dispose of the representation dated 19. 6. 2004 within three months. Thereafter, the petitioner was called to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli on 27. 11. 2004. He was assured that the action would be taken within ten days. But however, the second respondent, in pursuance of the order dated 5. 10. 2004 concluded the enquiry and sent a letter on 5. 1. 2005 to the petitioner dismissing the representation of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition by way of public interest litigation seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus.

(3.) ACCORDING to the second respondent, the Chief Engineer, the petition claiming it to be a public interest litigation would not involve public interest litigation and it is only a private interest litigation. The letter sent by the petitioner dated 3. 9. 2003 would indicate that the petitioner wanted that the lands to be purchased from the owners of the private lands for the purpose of putting up the poles. The documents filed before this Court would indicate that the petitioner sold the private lands as a Power of Attorney to the various firms for putting up wind mills. Further, the petitioner himself as a Contractor has received money from the fourth respondent for the purpose of putting up wind mills and poles. Therefore, the petitioner could not be heard to contend that this petition has been filed by way of public interest. Further, the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner were enquired into by the Division Bench and direction has been given lastly on 5. 10. 2004 that the representation sent by the petitioner on 19. 6. 2004 shall be disposed of within three months. Accordingly, the enquiry was held on 27. 11. 2004 and only after the enquiry, the representation was disposed of by the order dated 5. 1. 2005. Admittedly, the said order has not been challenged. In the absence of any challenge to the order passed by the second respondent, the writ petition for Mandamus is not maintainable. Moreover, the facts given in the affidavit filed by the petitioner are not correct. As a matter of fact, the respondents commenced erection of wind mills only after getting the necessary endorsement from the second respondent and tie-up approval for connecting the power generated by Wind Electric Generators. Only after getting the prior approval by way of -No Objection Certificate- from the second respondent, the other respondents laid necessary poles as per the sanctioned and approved estimates and drawings as approved by T. N. E. B. and as per the standard practices and under the supervision of representatives of the T. N. E. B. While such works are executed across or along the rivers/ponds, the other respondents have been taking utmost care and precautions to provide necessary guy wires/stay supports/earthing devices so as to not to cause any hazard to the life around such rivers/ponds. There was no resistance or protest from the public when the lines and poles were erected and installed.