LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-527

P MURUGESAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On February 27, 2017
P MURUGESAN Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.H3/3890/2013 dated 12.06.2013 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from taking electric transmission lines through the Petitioner's lands in S.F.Nos.1265/2 1266/2 1268/B2 and 1269/2 situate at Punnamchathram Village Aravakurichi Taluk Karur District.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, according to the petitioner, is that the petitioner is the Proprietor of Explosives Industry by name Sri Vengalamman Fireworks, which is situated at the land belongs to the wife of the petitioner at S.Nos.1265/2, 1266/2, 1268/B2 and 1269/2 situate at Punnamchatram, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. The petitioner is also having an Explosive Godown at the said survey number. For running the Explosives Industry as well as to have the Explosives Godown, the petitioner obtained valid license from the Explosives Department and accordingly, the petitioner is running the Industry. While so, the respondent Electricity Department wanted to draw a high tension line for 440 KW and above, through the said village, where the petitioner's Explosive Factory is located and when they had the proposal to draw the line, which had to be crossed across the land belongs to the petitioner, where exactly, the Explosive Industry was situated, strong objections were raised by the petitioner, before the first respondent District Collector. Even though such objection was raised by the petitioner, though the District Collector had invited their views from the respondent Electricity Department, the first respondent had ultimately passed the impugned order on 12.06.2013, whereby the first respondent had permitted the 4th respondent to draw the said High Tension line on and across the land belongs to the petitioner. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, dated 12.06.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard both sides.