2 to 4 to provide employment to the v. herein viz. R.Deepanchakravarthy as per the rehabilitation scheme formulated by the

W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.428 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.G.ThyagarajanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.32082 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.Nos.34664, 34668, 34670, 34672 & 34674 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor Respondents3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.Nos.34150, 34154, 34157, 34160 & 34161 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal WP.Nos.33910, 33912, 33914, 33915, 33917 & 33918 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal WP.Nos.32032, 32033, 32034, 32036, 32039, 32043 & 32047 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal WP.Nos.32054, 32058, 32060, 32061, 32062, 32063 & 32065 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.20899 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.20899 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalCOMMON ORDERSome of the writ petitions have been filed for direction to 5/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchthe respondents 2 to 4 to provide employment to the respective petitioners as per the rehabilitation scheme formulated by the respondents under the land acquisition category on par with similarly placed persons and as per the directions issued by this Court in WP.No.26956 of 2018 dated 25.08.2022; The remaining writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the fourth respondent thereby rejected the request of the respective petitioners to provide employment.2.The petitioner's family in WP.No.33377 of 2022 owned agricultural lands and residential building in survey No.524/3D, 3E and 3F to an extent of 0.27.5 hectares situated at PN Patty Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The said land was acquired by the respondents for Mettur Thermal Power Project, Mettur Dam, Salem District in the year 2006. The said land was in the name of the petitioner's grandfather and grandmother. At the time of acquiring the land, they were given assurance to provide compensation and employment to the land owners or legal heirs as per the scheme formulated by the respondents. The petitioner is the grandson of the original owners of the land which was 6/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchacquired by the respondents. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, their family owned house sites with their houses and they were residing there. There were 358 families. All the lands were acquired by the respondents for Mettur Thermal Power Project for the purpose of Upper Ash Dyke of Mettur Thermal Power Project in the year 2006. There were totally 358 residential houses and the lands are belonging to villages of S.Pudhureddiyur and Chinnakavur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The scheme was formulated by the respondents Board on 24.08.2002 and the same was approved by the second respondent by its order dated 06.01.2014. As rehabilitation measures and the benefits provided are compensation, alternative house sites to 358 families and employment to 358 families. The respondents gave assurance to each family member to provide compensation, alternative housesite and employment to the land owners or legal heirs as per the scheme which was formulated by the respondents. Accordingly, they were paid compensation and they were provided residential or alternative house sites with all amenities. 7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch2.1As per the proceedings dated 02.06.2003 on the file of the fourth respondent, in order to provide employment to 358 displaced families, they have to submit joint undertaking affidavits from two villages i.e. S.Pudureddiyur and Chinnakavur. However, they were not provided employment as per the scheme. According to the petitioners, it is not possible to file undertaking affidavit. Some of the beneficiaries filed writ petitions before this Court in WP.No.9010 of 2012, etc batch. All the writ petitions were disposed of with directions to get Land Loser Certificates from Revenue Divisional Officer, instead of joint undertaking affidavits and on submission of the said certificates, employment would be provided by the respondents by an order dated 13.06.2012. Contempt petitions were filed for non compliance of the said directions before this Court in Cont.P.Nos.488, 1149 and 1151 of 2015. Thereafter, the petitioners had submitted their representations seeking employment. In the contempt petitions, this Court directed the respondents to provide employment for all 358 displaced families as per the scheme. Subsequently, 162 beneficiaries were provided employment 8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchand the remaining 196 persons have not been provided employment. Therefore, 91 beneficiaries have filed sub applications to implead themselves as petitioners in the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015. 2.2In pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the second respondent issued direction to the fourth respondent to provide employment by granting age relaxation and also to provide employment to grandson, granddaughter, etc. Once again, this Court by an order dated 18.11.2019 in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015 directed the fourth respondent to provide employment on the basis of the approval of the second respondent dated 16.12.2017. However, the said order was also not complied with. The respondents filed appeal as against the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.06.2022, held that the order passed in the contempt petition is not sustainable by entertaining the sub applications and directed the beneficiaries to make claim by filing separate writ petitions or suit for their claim. In view of 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchthe said order, the petitioners have now filed these writ petitions.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that similarly placed persons filed various writ petitions and this Court directed the respondents to consider their applications within a stipulated time. 4.Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.5.On perusal of the counter filed by respondents 2 to 4 and the submissions made by Mr.Anand Gopalan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 revealed that the Government of Tamilnadu in the year 1978, passed order in GO.Ms.No.656 dated 19.06.1978 thereby issued directions to frame a scheme to provide employment to a member of the family whose source of income if affected owing to acquisition of lands for setting up projects of Public Sector Undertakings. In pursuant to the said order, in the year 1980, the Tamilnadu Electricity Board has passed Board proceedings No.24 dated 10.01.1980 thereby framed a scheme for providing employment. It was applicable to the families 10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchwhose source of income was affected by acquisition and family member i.e. land owner, spouse, son, daughter or adopted son, would be provided employment. After passing several orders by this Court and instructions, the respondents passed Board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018 framing a comprehensive guideline for considering the cases of land givers across all projects in an uniformed manner. The lands were acquired for setting up Mettur Thermal Power Station from the year 1982 onwards. In the year 2004, for the Upper Ash dyke Extension Project, further lands were acquired. The claim of the petitioners is that their lands were acquired in the year 2006 for setting up Upper Ash Dyke Extension Project and as such, they are entitled for employment to a member of their families. 6.Though some of the persons approached this Court after submitting their representations seeking employment under the above said scheme and filed writ petitions before this Court, the petitioners had not made any claim or representation seeking employment for long years after acquisition of their respective lands in the year 2006. There is delay 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchof more than 8 to 15 years for making their claim for employment. Admittedly all the petitioners' families were paid compensation for their lands and they were provided alternative house sites with all amenities. Insofar as the employment is concerned, all the petitioners are not the original land owners. The petitioners' extent of land, relationship of the original land owner and the delay in representation are as follows:Item No.WP.No.Extent of land(Sq.ft.)Employment forDelay in Represen-tation233377/22R.DeepanchakravarthyAgri LandGrandson15 years333771/22 – Govindan2637.16Daughter9 years33773/22 – M.Manimala4714.59Son8 years33774/22 – Allimuthu2346.53Son9 years33776/22 – L.Sivaraman2174.31Son9 years33777/22Govindan @ Govindaraj3078.48Himself/Son8 years433910/22 -Kaveriammal28578.18Son10 years33912/22-T.Govindaraj3767.37Grandson11 years33914/22-K.Varadharaju2357.3Son10 years33915/22 – Raja2690.98Son9 years33917/22-Myilsamy882.64Daughter9 years33918-22-Chandran1162.5Grandson11 years534150/22 – N.Velu2615.63Grandson9 years34154/22-K.Palaniswamy3218.41Grandson11 years34157/22-Kannammal1851.39Grandson11 years34160/22-Kandappan3444.45Granddaughter10 years12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchItem No.WP.No.Extent of land(Sq.ft.)Employment forDelay in Represen-tation34161/22-A.Muthu1237.85Granddaughter9 years634664/22-P.Manikandan2927.78Grandson10 years34668/22-C.Selvakumar2238.89Grandson9 years34670/22-V.Vellingiri4908.34Grandson11 years34672/22-S.Babu3422.92Grandson10 years34674/22-Madesh1722.23Granddaughter11 years7428/23-VenkatachalamMandaveliPorambokeHimself8 years832082/23-C.Selvaraj1797.57Grandson11 years7.As per the board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018, an eligible applicant ought to have applied for employment within period of three years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands. Admittedly, the petitioners did not seek any employment within a period of three years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands i.e. from the year 2006. It shows that the families were able to sustain for these long years. It would also go to show that their livelihood is not depending solely on the lands acquired for the projects. It is also to be noted that except the petitioner in WP.No.33377 of 2022, others' lands are only house sites. In fact, the land of the petitioner in WP.No.428 of 13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch2023 is classified as Mandaveli Poramboke. Though he is entitled for compenation and alternative house site for the construction, he is not entitled for any employment since his land belongs to Government.8.It is now well settled that even employment on compassionate ground is not an alternative to the normal course of employment and as such, appointments cannot be granted after period of reasonable time. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered after long years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands. As per GO.Ms.No.656 dated 19.06.1978, imposed condition that while providing employment, the livelihood of the family should have been affected due to the acquisition and the said land should be the only source of income. The land holding of the petitioners was very small and as such, small land holding could not have been the only source of income for any family. That apart, even according to the petitioners, it was only their dwelling houses. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchsecond respondent granted approval thereby directed the respondents 3 and 4 to provide employment to the family members dated 16.12.2017. On perusal of the said approval order dated 16.12.2017, it reads as follows:nkl;L:h; mdy; kpd; epiya rhk;gy; vhp tphpthf;fg;gzpf;fhf epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;ljpy;. ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;Ffs; Kot[ bgwhkYk; g[jpa tHf;Ffs; bjhlh;tij jtph;f;Fk; bghUl;Lk;. 15/05/2017 md;W ,Wjpahd jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;l ehshf vLj;Jf; bfhz;L ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l epy chpikahsh;fspd; ntiy tha;g;g[ mspg;gJ bjhlh;ghf jiyth; kw;Wk; nkyhz;ik ,af;Feh; mth;fs; fPH;f;fz;lthW cj;jut[ mspj;Js;shh;/m/ ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;go 15/05/2017 ,Wjpahd jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;l ehshf vLj;Jf;bfhz;L epy chpikahsh;fs; j';fspd; thhpRjhuh;fspy; ntiy tha;g;g[ nfhhp Vw;fdnt cWjpbkhHp gj;jpuk; mspj;jpUe;jhYk; 15/05/2017f;Fs; ghpe;Jiu bra;a[k; ntW thhpRjhuh;fSf;F (kfd;. kfs;. ngud;. ngj;jp. kUkfs;) Vida jFjpfis 15/05/2017 md;W (18 taJ g{h;j;jpaile;jpUj;jy;. 8k; tFg;g[ njh;r;rp) epiwt[ bra;a[k; gl;rj;jpy; ntiy tha;g;g[ 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchtH';fyhk;M/ epy chpikahsh;fs; j';fSf;nfh my;yJ thhpRjhuh;fSf;nfh ntiy tH';ff; nfhug;gl;lth;fs; 35 taij fle;jth;fshf ,Ug;gpDk; tajpid jsh;j;jp ntiy tha;g;g[ tH';fyhk;/2/ vdnt nkw;fz;l cj;jutpw;fpz';f Jhpj eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sk;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/j';fs; cz;ika[s;s(m/bt/utp)jiyikg; bghwpahsh;-gzpaikg;g[ 10.Subsequently, order has been passed by this Court in contempt petitions in Cont.P.No.488, 1149 & 1151 of 2015 dated 18.11.2019, wherein the following directions were issued: As per the details furnished by the respondent Corporation, so far, 162 persons have been given employment. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) of the respondent Corporation stating that out of 92 persons, who are before this Court, 2 persons have been found to be eligible and the applications of 4 other persons will also be considered. As far as the balance 86 persons are concerned, they are 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchineligible and the reasons, 11 in number, have been enumerated. A perusal of the said reasons would reveal that except reason no (viii) and (xi), the other reasons have been rightly quoted by the respondent Corporation to reject the applications. 2. As far as the applications which have been rejected quoting reason no. (viii) are concerned, namely, 'nomination is not within the definition of 'family',' the same have to be reconsidered in view of the decision taken by the Chairman as communicated through letter dated 16.12.2017 by the Chief Engineer (Personnel). The decision of the Chairman is to give employment to the grandchildren of the landlosers. It is also pointed out that one R. Ranjith Kumar, grandson of one of the landlosers had been given employment. Therefore, the rejection of the applications of 46 persons stating that the nominations made by them do not come within the definition of 'family' and they are only grandchildren is not acceptable. Their applications have to be reconsidered in view of the decision of the Chairman of the respondent Corporation as spelt out in the letter dated 16.12.2017. 3. As far as five applications which have been rejected based on reason (xi), i.e, being overaged as on 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch15.05.2017 is concerned, the said applications also require to be reconsidered. Since the lands were taken by virtue of land acquisition proceedings, as early as in 2002, the delay has debarred many persons on the ground of overage from getting employment. It is the fault of the respondent Corporation and therefore, either age relaxation should be given or some other nominees should be given. 4. A decision has to be taken in this regard and an affidavit has to be filed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) within two weeks. 5. Post on 02.12.2019. 6. It is made clear that the case of 91 persons who are not before this Court would not form part of this order. However, if any of the aforesaid 91 persons, who are not before this Court, withdraws the proceedings initiated by them, the same can be considered by the respondent Corporation. 11.Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred appeal in Cont.A.No.1 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.06.2022 set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, the 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchHon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed that in the affidavit filed by the first respondent stated that that fearing contempt proceedings, the TNEB has been meekly complying with the directions issued by this Court from time to time. We pause for a moment, not only to ponder over this averment, but to also introspect. The power of contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act is meant to subserve the administration of justice. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used like a bull in a china shop to instill fear in the minds of litigants to secure compliance. Power to punish for contempt is given to Constitutional Courts in the fond hope that there would not be any misuse. Fearing imprisonment, if bureaucrats were to bend backward and forward before us, can we keep bulldozing them into submission? The answer to this question is an emphatic ?no?. The entitlement of these 33 persons who have been impleaded as petitioners for getting employment cannot be tested in the contempt proceedings, when the Damocles- sword of imprisonment is kept hanging over the head of the appellants. The entitlements of the 33 persons seeking employment should have been first tested either in a writ petition or a suit but 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchdefinitely not in a contempt petition filed by a third party. 12.Therefore, the communications and the board proceedings were issued in order to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time. On perusal of the board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018, also revealed that the appointment shall be given to self or to wife or husband or son or daughter of the affected land owner as the case may be nominated by the land owner. Nomination for appointment made in favour of spouse or son or daughter or legally adopted son / daughter of the land owner shall be final and shall not be allowed to be revoked or altered.13.Insofar as the delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director of Sericulture Department and another reported in 2015 (15) SCC 1, wherein it is held as follows:36) It is now a well recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchprescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases Courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity "delay defeats equities". Therefore, even where no limitation is prescribed, but for a long period the aggrieved party does not approach the machinery provided under the law for redressel of the grievance, it can be presumed that relief can be denied on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. Further, if a person does not exercise his right for a long time, then such a right is not existent. 14.Insofar as the scheme provides employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired, is valid or not, in this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the 21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchcase of Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate and others reported in 2004 SCC Online All 1514, wherein it is answered for this question as follows:19. In our opinion, the aforesaid decisions do not lay down any principle of ' law that on acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act apart from giving them compensation under the Act a job has also to be provided. It is well settled that a mere direction in a judgment without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent vide Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2002 SC 3088, Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Raja Balwant Singh College, 2003 (1) ESC 424 etc. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not precedents.14.1Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment and also held that the Government orders / Circulars providing employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired (over and above compensation awarded under the law) are invalid. The acquiring body for whose 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchbenefit the land is acquired are not bound by such Government Order / Circular. Further, for the claim of the petitioners seeking employment on the ground that their lands have been acquired, they do not have any fundamental right to be provided employment by the respondents solely on the ground that their lands have been acquired. That apart, their entire claim is a stale claim and made belatedly. Merely rejection of their claim cannot give cause of action to file writ petition. 15.The learned counsel for the petitioners specifically relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in similar issue in WP.No.26956 of 2018, etc batch dated 25.08.2022, wherein this Court issued the following directions: 37.In view of the aforestated discussion, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following order:1)There shall be a direction in these writ petitions to the respondent TANGEDCO to re-consider the plea of the petitioners if it is not already considered or once considered and rejected or kept pending. 2)With regard to the plea raised by the respective 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchpetitioner for getting a job in the respondent TANGEDCO suitably for their family members either for the son or daughter or for the grandchildren as the case may be, necessary orders to that effect, based on the scheme as well as the observations made in this order as discussed above, shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.3)It is made clear that, in this regard any further input like NOC in one case as required or any further document is required from each of these petitioners, it is open to the respondents to issue notice to each of the petitioner to seek for such documents or additional input and on receipt of such notice, the respective petitioner shall produce those additional input, if it is available, within the time frame to be fixed in this regard by the TANGEDCO and thereafter, the needful as indicated above shall be made and final order shall be passed by the respondents within the time frame mentioned hereinabove. 15.1This Court respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, which decides the issue involved in the present writ petition. However, it is not applicable for the petitioners 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchfor the reasons as discussed above.16.Further, as per the Government Order in GO.Ms.No.656, the persons who have submitted the application for seeking employment must establish that they are in a need of employment and further they are bound to establish their indigent circumstances enabling the respondents to consider the case for providing employment. Establishing the penurious circumstances is also a pre-condition for seeking job assistance from the respondents. The petitioners failed to establish their penurious circumstances arising on account of the acquisition of their lands. The belated claim of the petitioners clearly show that at the time of acquisition of their respective lands, their family members were employed. Therefore, their families were not in need of any employment. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that someone in the family must be given employment, otherwise the family will be faced with economical problem. Therefore, after period of long 8 to 15 years, the claim of the petitioners seeking employment on the acquisition of their respective lands in the year 2004 to 2006 cannot be considered now. 25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch17.In view of the above discussion, the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered and all the writ petitioners are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 20.02.2024Internet: Yes Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderlok26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchTo1.Principal Secretary to Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 0092.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 0023.The Chief Engineer(Personal), Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 0024.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Project (MTPS), Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, Mettur Dam 636 406, Salem District5.The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Revenue Division, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchG.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokW.P.Nos.33377, 33771, 33773, 33774, 33776, 33777, 33910, 33912, 33914, 33915, 33917, 33918, 34150, 34154, 34157, 34160, 34161, 34664, 34668, 34670, 34672, 34674 of 2022, 428 of 2023, 32082 of 2023, 32032, 32033, 32034, 32036, 32039, 32043, 32047 of 2022, 32054, 32058, 32060, 32061, 32062, 32063, 32065, 33139 of 2022 and 20899 of 202328/29

W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.428 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.G.ThyagarajanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.32082 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.Nos.34664, 34668, 34670, 34672 & 34674 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor Respondents3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.Nos.34150, 34154, 34157, 34160 & 34161 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal WP.Nos.33910, 33912, 33914, 33915, 33917 & 33918 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.M.R.JothimanianFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5: Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal WP.Nos.32032, 32033, 32034, 32036, 32039, 32043 & 32047 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal WP.Nos.32054, 32058, 32060, 32061, 32062, 32063 & 32065 of 2022For Petitioners: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.20899 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 & 5 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalWP.No.20899 of 2023For Petitioner: Mr.V.ElangovanFor RespondentsFor R1 : Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government PleaderFor R2 to 4: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam LegalCOMMON ORDERSome of the writ petitions have been filed for direction to 5/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchthe respondents 2 to 4 to provide employment to the respective petitioners as per the rehabilitation scheme formulated by the respondents under the land acquisition category on par with similarly placed persons and as per the directions issued by this Court in WP.No.26956 of 2018 dated 25.08.2022; The remaining writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the fourth respondent thereby rejected the request of the respective petitioners to provide employment.2.The petitioner's family in WP.No.33377 of 2022 owned agricultural lands and residential building in survey No.524/3D, 3E and 3F to an extent of 0.27.5 hectares situated at PN Patty Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The said land was acquired by the respondents for Mettur Thermal Power Project, Mettur Dam, Salem District in the year 2006. The said land was in the name of the petitioner's grandfather and grandmother. At the time of acquiring the land, they were given assurance to provide compensation and employment to the land owners or legal heirs as per the scheme formulated by the respondents. The petitioner is the grandson of the original owners of the land which was 6/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchacquired by the respondents. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, their family owned house sites with their houses and they were residing there. There were 358 families. All the lands were acquired by the respondents for Mettur Thermal Power Project for the purpose of Upper Ash Dyke of Mettur Thermal Power Project in the year 2006. There were totally 358 residential houses and the lands are belonging to villages of S.Pudhureddiyur and Chinnakavur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The scheme was formulated by the respondents Board on 24.08.2002 and the same was approved by the second respondent by its order dated 06.01.2014. As rehabilitation measures and the benefits provided are compensation, alternative house sites to 358 families and employment to 358 families. The respondents gave assurance to each family member to provide compensation, alternative housesite and employment to the land owners or legal heirs as per the scheme which was formulated by the respondents. Accordingly, they were paid compensation and they were provided residential or alternative house sites with all amenities. 7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch2.1As per the proceedings dated 02.06.2003 on the file of the fourth respondent, in order to provide employment to 358 displaced families, they have to submit joint undertaking affidavits from two villages i.e. S.Pudureddiyur and Chinnakavur. However, they were not provided employment as per the scheme. According to the petitioners, it is not possible to file undertaking affidavit. Some of the beneficiaries filed writ petitions before this Court in WP.No.9010 of 2012, etc batch. All the writ petitions were disposed of with directions to get Land Loser Certificates from Revenue Divisional Officer, instead of joint undertaking affidavits and on submission of the said certificates, employment would be provided by the respondents by an order dated 13.06.2012. Contempt petitions were filed for non compliance of the said directions before this Court in Cont.P.Nos.488, 1149 and 1151 of 2015. Thereafter, the petitioners had submitted their representations seeking employment. In the contempt petitions, this Court directed the respondents to provide employment for all 358 displaced families as per the scheme. Subsequently, 162 beneficiaries were provided employment 8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchand the remaining 196 persons have not been provided employment. Therefore, 91 beneficiaries have filed sub applications to implead themselves as petitioners in the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015. 2.2In pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the second respondent issued direction to the fourth respondent to provide employment by granting age relaxation and also to provide employment to grandson, granddaughter, etc. Once again, this Court by an order dated 18.11.2019 in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015 directed the fourth respondent to provide employment on the basis of the approval of the second respondent dated 16.12.2017. However, the said order was also not complied with. The respondents filed appeal as against the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.06.2022, held that the order passed in the contempt petition is not sustainable by entertaining the sub applications and directed the beneficiaries to make claim by filing separate writ petitions or suit for their claim. In view of 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchthe said order, the petitioners have now filed these writ petitions.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that similarly placed persons filed various writ petitions and this Court directed the respondents to consider their applications within a stipulated time. 4.Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.5.On perusal of the counter filed by respondents 2 to 4 and the submissions made by Mr.Anand Gopalan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 revealed that the Government of Tamilnadu in the year 1978, passed order in GO.Ms.No.656 dated 19.06.1978 thereby issued directions to frame a scheme to provide employment to a member of the family whose source of income if affected owing to acquisition of lands for setting up projects of Public Sector Undertakings. In pursuant to the said order, in the year 1980, the Tamilnadu Electricity Board has passed Board proceedings No.24 dated 10.01.1980 thereby framed a scheme for providing employment. It was applicable to the families 10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchwhose source of income was affected by acquisition and family member i.e. land owner, spouse, son, daughter or adopted son, would be provided employment. After passing several orders by this Court and instructions, the respondents passed Board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018 framing a comprehensive guideline for considering the cases of land givers across all projects in an uniformed manner. The lands were acquired for setting up Mettur Thermal Power Station from the year 1982 onwards. In the year 2004, for the Upper Ash dyke Extension Project, further lands were acquired. The claim of the petitioners is that their lands were acquired in the year 2006 for setting up Upper Ash Dyke Extension Project and as such, they are entitled for employment to a member of their families. 6.Though some of the persons approached this Court after submitting their representations seeking employment under the above said scheme and filed writ petitions before this Court, the petitioners had not made any claim or representation seeking employment for long years after acquisition of their respective lands in the year 2006. There is delay 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchof more than 8 to 15 years for making their claim for employment. Admittedly all the petitioners' families were paid compensation for their lands and they were provided alternative house sites with all amenities. Insofar as the employment is concerned, all the petitioners are not the original land owners. The petitioners' extent of land, relationship of the original land owner and the delay in representation are as follows:Item No.WP.No.Extent of land(Sq.ft.)Employment forDelay in Represen-tation233377/22R.DeepanchakravarthyAgri LandGrandson15 years333771/22 – Govindan2637.16Daughter9 years33773/22 – M.Manimala4714.59Son8 years33774/22 – Allimuthu2346.53Son9 years33776/22 – L.Sivaraman2174.31Son9 years33777/22Govindan @ Govindaraj3078.48Himself/Son8 years433910/22 -Kaveriammal28578.18Son10 years33912/22-T.Govindaraj3767.37Grandson11 years33914/22-K.Varadharaju2357.3Son10 years33915/22 – Raja2690.98Son9 years33917/22-Myilsamy882.64Daughter9 years33918-22-Chandran1162.5Grandson11 years534150/22 – N.Velu2615.63Grandson9 years34154/22-K.Palaniswamy3218.41Grandson11 years34157/22-Kannammal1851.39Grandson11 years34160/22-Kandappan3444.45Granddaughter10 years12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchItem No.WP.No.Extent of land(Sq.ft.)Employment forDelay in Represen-tation34161/22-A.Muthu1237.85Granddaughter9 years634664/22-P.Manikandan2927.78Grandson10 years34668/22-C.Selvakumar2238.89Grandson9 years34670/22-V.Vellingiri4908.34Grandson11 years34672/22-S.Babu3422.92Grandson10 years34674/22-Madesh1722.23Granddaughter11 years7428/23-VenkatachalamMandaveliPorambokeHimself8 years832082/23-C.Selvaraj1797.57Grandson11 years7.As per the board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018, an eligible applicant ought to have applied for employment within period of three years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands. Admittedly, the petitioners did not seek any employment within a period of three years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands i.e. from the year 2006. It shows that the families were able to sustain for these long years. It would also go to show that their livelihood is not depending solely on the lands acquired for the projects. It is also to be noted that except the petitioner in WP.No.33377 of 2022, others' lands are only house sites. In fact, the land of the petitioner in WP.No.428 of 13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch2023 is classified as Mandaveli Poramboke. Though he is entitled for compenation and alternative house site for the construction, he is not entitled for any employment since his land belongs to Government.8.It is now well settled that even employment on compassionate ground is not an alternative to the normal course of employment and as such, appointments cannot be granted after period of reasonable time. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered after long years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands. As per GO.Ms.No.656 dated 19.06.1978, imposed condition that while providing employment, the livelihood of the family should have been affected due to the acquisition and the said land should be the only source of income. The land holding of the petitioners was very small and as such, small land holding could not have been the only source of income for any family. That apart, even according to the petitioners, it was only their dwelling houses. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchsecond respondent granted approval thereby directed the respondents 3 and 4 to provide employment to the family members dated 16.12.2017. On perusal of the said approval order dated 16.12.2017, it reads as follows:nkl;L:h; mdy; kpd; epiya rhk;gy; vhp tphpthf;fg;gzpf;fhf epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;ljpy;. ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;Ffs; Kot[ bgwhkYk; g[jpa tHf;Ffs; bjhlh;tij jtph;f;Fk; bghUl;Lk;. 15/05/2017 md;W ,Wjpahd jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;l ehshf vLj;Jf; bfhz;L ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l epy chpikahsh;fspd; ntiy tha;g;g[ mspg;gJ bjhlh;ghf jiyth; kw;Wk; nkyhz;ik ,af;Feh; mth;fs; fPH;f;fz;lthW cj;jut[ mspj;Js;shh;/m/ ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;go 15/05/2017 ,Wjpahd jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;l ehshf vLj;Jf;bfhz;L epy chpikahsh;fs; j';fspd; thhpRjhuh;fspy; ntiy tha;g;g[ nfhhp Vw;fdnt cWjpbkhHp gj;jpuk; mspj;jpUe;jhYk; 15/05/2017f;Fs; ghpe;Jiu bra;a[k; ntW thhpRjhuh;fSf;F (kfd;. kfs;. ngud;. ngj;jp. kUkfs;) Vida jFjpfis 15/05/2017 md;W (18 taJ g{h;j;jpaile;jpUj;jy;. 8k; tFg;g[ njh;r;rp) epiwt[ bra;a[k; gl;rj;jpy; ntiy tha;g;g[ 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchtH';fyhk;M/ epy chpikahsh;fs; j';fSf;nfh my;yJ thhpRjhuh;fSf;nfh ntiy tH';ff; nfhug;gl;lth;fs; 35 taij fle;jth;fshf ,Ug;gpDk; tajpid jsh;j;jp ntiy tha;g;g[ tH';fyhk;/2/ vdnt nkw;fz;l cj;jutpw;fpz';f Jhpj eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sk;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/j';fs; cz;ika[s;s(m/bt/utp)jiyikg; bghwpahsh;-gzpaikg;g[ 10.Subsequently, order has been passed by this Court in contempt petitions in Cont.P.No.488, 1149 & 1151 of 2015 dated 18.11.2019, wherein the following directions were issued: As per the details furnished by the respondent Corporation, so far, 162 persons have been given employment. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) of the respondent Corporation stating that out of 92 persons, who are before this Court, 2 persons have been found to be eligible and the applications of 4 other persons will also be considered. As far as the balance 86 persons are concerned, they are 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchineligible and the reasons, 11 in number, have been enumerated. A perusal of the said reasons would reveal that except reason no (viii) and (xi), the other reasons have been rightly quoted by the respondent Corporation to reject the applications. 2. As far as the applications which have been rejected quoting reason no. (viii) are concerned, namely, 'nomination is not within the definition of 'family',' the same have to be reconsidered in view of the decision taken by the Chairman as communicated through letter dated 16.12.2017 by the Chief Engineer (Personnel). The decision of the Chairman is to give employment to the grandchildren of the landlosers. It is also pointed out that one R. Ranjith Kumar, grandson of one of the landlosers had been given employment. Therefore, the rejection of the applications of 46 persons stating that the nominations made by them do not come within the definition of 'family' and they are only grandchildren is not acceptable. Their applications have to be reconsidered in view of the decision of the Chairman of the respondent Corporation as spelt out in the letter dated 16.12.2017. 3. As far as five applications which have been rejected based on reason (xi), i.e, being overaged as on 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch15.05.2017 is concerned, the said applications also require to be reconsidered. Since the lands were taken by virtue of land acquisition proceedings, as early as in 2002, the delay has debarred many persons on the ground of overage from getting employment. It is the fault of the respondent Corporation and therefore, either age relaxation should be given or some other nominees should be given. 4. A decision has to be taken in this regard and an affidavit has to be filed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) within two weeks. 5. Post on 02.12.2019. 6. It is made clear that the case of 91 persons who are not before this Court would not form part of this order. However, if any of the aforesaid 91 persons, who are not before this Court, withdraws the proceedings initiated by them, the same can be considered by the respondent Corporation. 11.Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred appeal in Cont.A.No.1 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.06.2022 set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, the 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchHon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed that in the affidavit filed by the first respondent stated that that fearing contempt proceedings, the TNEB has been meekly complying with the directions issued by this Court from time to time. We pause for a moment, not only to ponder over this averment, but to also introspect. The power of contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act is meant to subserve the administration of justice. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used like a bull in a china shop to instill fear in the minds of litigants to secure compliance. Power to punish for contempt is given to Constitutional Courts in the fond hope that there would not be any misuse. Fearing imprisonment, if bureaucrats were to bend backward and forward before us, can we keep bulldozing them into submission? The answer to this question is an emphatic ?no?. The entitlement of these 33 persons who have been impleaded as petitioners for getting employment cannot be tested in the contempt proceedings, when the Damocles- sword of imprisonment is kept hanging over the head of the appellants. The entitlements of the 33 persons seeking employment should have been first tested either in a writ petition or a suit but 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchdefinitely not in a contempt petition filed by a third party. 12.Therefore, the communications and the board proceedings were issued in order to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time. On perusal of the board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018, also revealed that the appointment shall be given to self or to wife or husband or son or daughter of the affected land owner as the case may be nominated by the land owner. Nomination for appointment made in favour of spouse or son or daughter or legally adopted son / daughter of the land owner shall be final and shall not be allowed to be revoked or altered.13.Insofar as the delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director of Sericulture Department and another reported in 2015 (15) SCC 1, wherein it is held as follows:36) It is now a well recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchprescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases Courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity "delay defeats equities". Therefore, even where no limitation is prescribed, but for a long period the aggrieved party does not approach the machinery provided under the law for redressel of the grievance, it can be presumed that relief can be denied on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. Further, if a person does not exercise his right for a long time, then such a right is not existent. 14.Insofar as the scheme provides employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired, is valid or not, in this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the 21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchcase of Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate and others reported in 2004 SCC Online All 1514, wherein it is answered for this question as follows:19. In our opinion, the aforesaid decisions do not lay down any principle of ' law that on acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act apart from giving them compensation under the Act a job has also to be provided. It is well settled that a mere direction in a judgment without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent vide Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2002 SC 3088, Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Raja Balwant Singh College, 2003 (1) ESC 424 etc. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not precedents.14.1Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment and also held that the Government orders / Circulars providing employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired (over and above compensation awarded under the law) are invalid. The acquiring body for whose 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchbenefit the land is acquired are not bound by such Government Order / Circular. Further, for the claim of the petitioners seeking employment on the ground that their lands have been acquired, they do not have any fundamental right to be provided employment by the respondents solely on the ground that their lands have been acquired. That apart, their entire claim is a stale claim and made belatedly. Merely rejection of their claim cannot give cause of action to file writ petition. 15.The learned counsel for the petitioners specifically relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in similar issue in WP.No.26956 of 2018, etc batch dated 25.08.2022, wherein this Court issued the following directions: 37.In view of the aforestated discussion, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following order:1)There shall be a direction in these writ petitions to the respondent TANGEDCO to re-consider the plea of the petitioners if it is not already considered or once considered and rejected or kept pending. 2)With regard to the plea raised by the respective 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchpetitioner for getting a job in the respondent TANGEDCO suitably for their family members either for the son or daughter or for the grandchildren as the case may be, necessary orders to that effect, based on the scheme as well as the observations made in this order as discussed above, shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.3)It is made clear that, in this regard any further input like NOC in one case as required or any further document is required from each of these petitioners, it is open to the respondents to issue notice to each of the petitioner to seek for such documents or additional input and on receipt of such notice, the respective petitioner shall produce those additional input, if it is available, within the time frame to be fixed in this regard by the TANGEDCO and thereafter, the needful as indicated above shall be made and final order shall be passed by the respondents within the time frame mentioned hereinabove. 15.1This Court respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, which decides the issue involved in the present writ petition. However, it is not applicable for the petitioners 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchfor the reasons as discussed above.16.Further, as per the Government Order in GO.Ms.No.656, the persons who have submitted the application for seeking employment must establish that they are in a need of employment and further they are bound to establish their indigent circumstances enabling the respondents to consider the case for providing employment. Establishing the penurious circumstances is also a pre-condition for seeking job assistance from the respondents. The petitioners failed to establish their penurious circumstances arising on account of the acquisition of their lands. The belated claim of the petitioners clearly show that at the time of acquisition of their respective lands, their family members were employed. Therefore, their families were not in need of any employment. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that someone in the family must be given employment, otherwise the family will be faced with economical problem. Therefore, after period of long 8 to 15 years, the claim of the petitioners seeking employment on the acquisition of their respective lands in the year 2004 to 2006 cannot be considered now. 25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batch17.In view of the above discussion, the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered and all the writ petitioners are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 20.02.2024Internet: Yes Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderlok26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchTo1.Principal Secretary to Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 0092.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 0023.The Chief Engineer(Personal), Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 0024.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Project (MTPS), Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, Mettur Dam 636 406, Salem District5.The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Revenue Division, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33377 of 2022, etc batchG.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokW.P.Nos.33377, 33771, 33773, 33774, 33776, 33777, 33910, 33912, 33914, 33915, 33917, 33918, 34150, 34154, 34157, 34160, 34161, 34664, 34668, 34670, 34672, 34674 of 2022, 428 of 2023, 32082 of 2023, 32032, 32033, 32034, 32036, 32039, 32043, 32047 of 2022, 32054, 32058, 32060, 32061, 32062, 32063, 32065, 33139 of 2022 and 20899 of 202328/29