A SARASWATHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COIMBATORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents, their men and their agents from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the land or entering upon the petitioner's property comprised at S.No,308/1 K. Ayyampalaym Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District measuring to an extent of 1.33.5 acres.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the abovesaid land and she has raised crops also in the said land and her entire family is depending upon the income from the abovesaid land for their livelihood the second respondent had a proposal to install a high tension power line through the land of one Subbayya Gounder which is adjacent to her land, however, since the owners of the lands which are adjacent to her lands, are influential persons, on the payment made by them, installation of high tension power line through the said lands was dropped. But, it is the case of the petitioner that consequence of this, steps were taken to install the high tension power line in the land of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner's agricultural activity in the said land will get affected, the petitioner had raised objections, however, the same was not considered during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, direction was given to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's objection and to pass orders on the same and even subsequent to this, since no orders were passed and since steps were taken for the erection of high tension power line, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, as far as the mode of service of notice is concerned, the relevant procedure under the Act or under the Rules has not been followed. But, the stand of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that since as per Section 171 of the Electricity Act, 2003, delivery or any notice after obtaining the signed acknowledged receipt is also one of the prescribed modes when an attempt was made to serve it to the person of the petitioner, since he refused to receive the same, affixture was followed. I am not able to agree with this stand of the learned Additional Government Pleader. When a particular Act prescribes a particular mode of service of notice or document, only that particular mode has to be followed. Under Section 171 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in addition to personal service of notice, the other mode prescribed is by way of registered post. In the event of the petitioner not receiving the said notice, since one other mode i.e. registered post is prescribed, the respondents ought to have followed that procedure and instead of doing so, affixture is not an authorized mode as far as the issue relating to the Electricity Act, 2003 is concerned.