R.Sujatha Babu v. The Superintending Engineer Vellore Electricity System Vellore & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 25.8.2009Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDRENS.A.No.1292 of 1995R.Sujatha Babu .. Appellantvs.1. The Superintending Engineer Vellore Electricity System Vellore2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer O & M T.N.E.B. Vaniyambadi3. The Junior Engineer (Construction) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Ambur .. RespondentsThe Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment anddecree, dated 3.9.1993, in A.S.No.7 of 1993, on the file of theSubordinate Judge, Thirupattur, confirming the judgment anddecree, dated 5.11.1992, in O.S.No.45 of 1986, on the file of thePrincipal District Munsif Court, Thirupattur. For Appellant : Mr.A.Gouthaman For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthusamy J U D G E M E N TThis second appeal has been filed challenging the judgmentand decree, dated 3.9.1993, made in A.S.No.7 of 1993, on the fileof the Subordinate Judge, Thirupattur, confirming the judgment anddecree, dated 5.11.1992, made in O.S.No.45 of 1986, on the file ofthe District Munsif Court, Thirupattur. 2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.45 of 1986, is theappellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filedthe suit against the defendants praying for a mandatory injunctionto direct the defendants therein to remove the electrical poles,erected for installing a transformer, and the other connectedequipments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The plaintiff had stated that the suit property belongs toher. On the eastern side of the property of the plaintiff, whichhas an extent of 4.60 acres, in survey No.90/1A, there is a roadbelonging to the Municipality. On the eastern side of theSanankkuppam Road, the defendants had established a transformer.The said transformer had been situated for nearly 10 years.Recently, the Highways Department had laid a road across theplaintiff's land. Therefore, the defendants had to remove thetransformer. The defendants had dug up holes near the path leadingto the samadhi of the ancestors of the plaintiff and near theTemple and the house, which were to be built. The defendants weretrying to erect the transformer near the samadhi of theplaintiff's ancestors. The erection of the transformer at thatplace would block the entrance of the Temple and it would also bedangerous to the people using the area. On the southern side ofthe place, where the defendants are proposing to erect thetransformer, there is a vacant space. If the transformer iserected in the said place, it would not cause any harm to any one.In such circumstances, the plaintiff had filed the suit inO.S.No.45 of 1986, before the District Munsif Court, Thirupattur.4. The written statement filed on behalf of the thirddefendant had been adopted by the first and second defendants. 5. In the written statement filed by the third defendant, ithas been stated that the suit has been instituted by the plaintiffwith an ulterior motive. It has been filed in order to harass thedefendants. The said suit is not maintainable, either in law or onfacts. Pursuant to the request of Highways Department, thedefendants had shifted the transformer to a different place. Sincethere are other electrical poles, which have already been put up,the transformer had to be erected on the western side of the road.By such erection, no harm would be done to the plaintiff or to herproperty. The suit is prohibited by section 82 of the IndianElectricity Supply Act. As such, the suit filed by the plaintiffis devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the plaintiff,as well as the defendants, the trial Court had framed thefollowing issues for consideration:"1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefof mandatory injunction, as prayed for in the suit?2) what other reliefs?"7. On analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court hadcome to the conclusion that the defendants in the suit are havingthe power to erect the transformer at the place in which it isproposed to be erected, in accordance with the provisions of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Indian Telegraph Act and the Indian Electricity Supply Act.further, the erection of the transformer is for a public purposeand shifting it to another place would cause the Electricitydepartment a sum of 25,000/-, as expenses. Further, the decisionto erect the transformer had been taken after proper planning bythe experts in engineering and after analysing all the relevantaspects. If the reliefs, as prayed for by the plaintiff, aregranted, it would cause heavy loss and serious damage to thescheme of the defendants, which is meant for a public purpose. Itwould also adversely affect the national interest, with regard tothe production and supply of electricity. Accordingly, the trialCourt had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court,dated 5.11.1992, made in O.S.No.45 of 1986, the plaintiff hadpreferred a first appeal, on the file of the Subordinate Court,Thirupattur, in A.S.NO.7 of 1993. The first appellate Court hadframed the following points for consideration: "1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled tothe relief of mandatory injunction? 2. Whether the suit is barred under Section 82 ofthe Indian Electricity Supply Act?"9. While Answering the points arising for consideration, thefirst appellate Court had confirmed the judgment and decree of thetrial Court, by its judgment and decree, dated 3.9.1993, made inA.S.No.7 of 1993. The first appellate Court had held that therewas no bar under Section 82 of the Indian Electricity Supply Actto file the suit. However, the appellant in the first appeal isnot entitled to the relief sought for by her, since the projectfor supplying the electricity, by erecting the transformer and bydrawing the electrical lines, is for a public purpose and thatsuch schemes are planned and executed by experts in the concernedfield. Further, if some inconvenience or loss is caused, due tothe implementation of such schemes and projects, the concernedpersons could be compensated for the losses caused, in accordancewith the procedures established by law. For the said reasons, thefirst appellate Court had dismissed the first appeal filed by theappellant, in A.S.No.7 of 1993, by its judgment and decree, dated3.9.1993. 10. Challenging the judgment and decree of the firstappellate Court, dated 3.9.1993, made in A.S.No.7 of 1993, theappellant in the first appeal had filed the present second appealbefore this Court, in S.A.No.1292 of 1995.11. The second appeal had been admitted on the followingsubstantial question of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to adecree for mandatory injunction directing the ElectricityDepartment to remove the transformer installed in frontof the house of the appellant/plaintiff and to re-placethe same in some other place?"12. The appellant had filed the second appeal stating thatthe judgment and decree of the trial Court, as well as the firstappellate court, are vitiated due to the non- consideration of theevidence in favour of the appellant, who was the plaintiff in thesuit. The courts below had not properly appreciated the report ofthe Commissioner, in which it was suggested that the transformercould be installed in an alternative site, without any hindrancebeing caused to the appellant. The courts below had not consideredthe hardship, that would be caused to the appellant in enjoyingher property, due to the erection of the transformer close to hernewly constructed house. Further, the Courts below had notconsidered the fact that the transformer was proposed to beerected close to the samadhi of the plaintiff's ancestors. Eventhough there was ample space for erecting the transformer on thesouthern side of the proposed site, the Courts below had notconsidered such an alternative. The cost of Rs.25,000/-, thatwould be incurred by the Electricity Department to re-locate thetransformer, had been given undue weightage by the courts below.Even though the report of the Commissioner had clearly stated thatthe erecting of the transformer would cause danger to the use ofher property by the appellant, the courts below had chosen toignore the said report. 13. On behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that thefindings of the Courts below are in accordance with the facts andcircumstances of the case. The erection of the transformer by thedefendants is in accordance with the powers vested in them by theprovisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, and the Indian ElectricitySupply Act, and the other relevant provisions of law. Since theproject is meant for a public purpose and as the scheme has beenproposed by experts in the field, all relevant factors had beentaken into consideration before the erection of the transformersand the drawing of the electrical lines. If any loss had beencaused to the appellant, she could make a claim for payment ofcompensation, in accordance with the procedures established bylaw.14. In view of the averments made on behalf of the appellant,as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the recordsavailable, this Court is of the considered view that no case hasbeen made out by the appellant to interfere with the concurrentfindings of the Courts below. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. As has been stated by the trial Court, as well as thefirst appellate Court, the erection of the transformer and thedrawing of electricity lines forms part of a project meant forpublic purpose. The appellant has not been in a position to showthat a substantial loss had been caused to her due to theinstallation of the transformer adjacent to her property. Evenotherwise, it would be open to the appellant to make a claim forcompensation against the respondents, in accordance with theprocedures established by law. Since the respondents are empoweredto erect the transformer and to draw electrical lines acrossprivate properties, in accordance with the relevant provisions oflaw, the appellant is not entitled to a mandatory injunction, asprayed for by her. Further, no substantial question of law arisesfor the consideration of this Court in the present second appeal. 16. In such view of the matter, the judgment and decree ofthe Courts below are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appealstands dismissed. No costs. LanSd/-Deputy Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo:1. The Subordinate Judge, Thirupattur,2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Thirupattur3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. N. Muthuswaami, Advocate SR No.41152S.A.No.1292 of 1995RL(CO)SR/1.9.2009