AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Petitioner is the Managing Trustee of Sri Vasavi Kannikaparameswari Devasthanam. The petitioner has prayed for writ of
Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from erecting transformer in front of the temple on Mosque Street, Trivellore and to remove the
pillars already fixed.
It is stated that the respondents 1 to 3 have erected electric poles in front of the door of the temple premises abutting Mosque Road.
Interim stay having been granted, the petition for vacating the stay has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, primarily for whose benefit,
the transformer is being erected.
Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has obtained instructions and also produced the relevant files and photographs. A counter affidavit has also
been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.
A perusal of the materials on record as well as the photographs produced would clearly indicate that electric poles have been erected adjacent
to the door of the temple in Mosque Road. It is of course true that the aforesaid door is backside door of the temple and there is access to the
temple from the other road on front side.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has contended that since poles are being erected on public land belonging to the
Government and not belonging to the petitioner, no objection can be raised by the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in
Pharmasivam and another Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and 2 others, , 2001(4) CTC 129 (A.R.A.S. DURAISAMY NADAR v. TAMIL
NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TUTICORIN) and The Superintending Engineer, TNEB
Basin Bridge, Power House, Chennai-12 and three others Vs. Thangaprakasam,
In Pharmasivam and another Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and 2 others, while considering the question of grant of injunction in a suit for
prohibitory injunction, the matter has come to High Court in Second Appeal. In that case, the transformer is sought to be erected in front of the
plaintiff''s property. While considering this aspect, this Court has observed :
. . . 7. The evidence of D.W.1 was also placed before me. On going by his evidence, it is clear that no damage will be caused to the plaintiff''s
property and the installation of a transformer is absolutely necessary so as to maintain the voltage stability. The witness also swears that the
installation of transformer is an urgent necessity of the locality and he also said that the voltage stability cannot be maintained by making necessary
adjustments in the existing transformers situated near the plaint property. The lower appellate court has also considered the evidence of P.W.1.
The plaintiff has not given any evidence to show how the installation of the transformer will affect his property. His only apprehension is that
installation may affect injuriously in future. Merely on the basis of apprehension, a decree for injunction cannot be granted. The respondents are
doing a lawful act and they are the statutory authorities. To prevent them from discharging the statutory functions, will amount to a direction against
law.
From the aforesaid decision, it is apparent that no damage was caused to the plaintiff''s property as the plaintiff had not given any evidence to show
how installation of the transformer would affect his property.
In the present case, the materials on record, including the photographs, would amply make it clear that the transformer would be very near to
the door of the temple and one has to pass beneath the transformer while going inside the temple by using the door. The decision in Pharmasivam
and another Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and 2 others, is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.
The decision reported in The Superintending Engineer, TNEB Basin Bridge, Power House, Chennai-12 and three others Vs. Thangaprakasam,
is also distinguishable inasmuch as, the erection was on the basis of a sanctioned scheme, which is not so in the present case.
The decision reported in 2001(4) CTC 129 is also distinguishable, wherein it was observed :
. . . On going through the materials available, I am unable to find that the access of the plaintiff to the property is in any way obstructed to or
curtailed by the installation of the transformer as indicated in the Plan. . . . .
As already indicated, in the present case, the access to the temple from the Mosque road through the existing door would be obstructed or
curtailed if the transformer would be erected just in front of the door, as apparent from the photographs and other materials on record. Moreover,
on a perusal of the records, it is apparent that initially the proposal was to erect the transformer at a different place, but subsequently the same has
been shifted. The erection of transformer is basically for the benefit of the respondent No. 4, though incidentally it may benefit other persons in the
locality. If the respondent No. 4 is unable to provide any land or the land provided by him would not be suitable, the respondents 1 to 3 should try
to locate the transformer in any other suitable place.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.