LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-199

V. S. DURAISAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On July 19, 2019
V. S. Duraisamy Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claiming himself as a public litigant activist, the petitioner a resident of Municipal Colony, Erode Town, Erode District, has filed the instant Public Interest Litigation, for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dismantle the electricity line from tower Nos.172 to 180 located at Erode Towm, Erode District, in the electricity supply line viz., Mettur barage IV to Erode, being recommendation made by the respondents and also representation dated 16.08.2017.

(2.) The petitioner states that, the High Tension Electric Line Tower between barage IV, Mettur and Erode, carrying 110 KV power supply was erected by the respondent during 1937. The petitioner states that, initially about 66 KV electricity was transmitted through these lines and in the year 1953, it was increased to 110 KV. The petitioner states that, due to constant use for the last nearly 80 years, the stability and strength of towers has come down and High Tension Electric Line Towers No.172 to 179 is becoming a threat to the lives of general public. The petitioner also states that, there is a constant wire snapping and people in that area have got electrocuted. The petitioner gives the following reasons for dismantling the High Tension Electric Line Tower:-

(3.) The petitioner states that, there have been recommendation to dismantle the High Tension Electric Line Tower lines. The petitioner relies on a letter dated 27.08.1992, from the Executive Engineer, Operation, TNEB, Ingur, to the Superintending Engineer, Operation, TNEB, Salem, recommending dismantling of the tower between towers No.172 to 179. The petitioner states that the respondents instead of dismantling the towers, are now trying to increase the height of the High Tension Electric Line Tower lines between towers no.172 to 179, for providing ground clearance for the proposed highway over bridge which according to the petitioner is contrary to law.