Madras High CourtWA/994/2017withdrawn dismissed

K.Arumugam v. The Chairman

2017-09-04Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose,Honourable Mr Justice Rajiv Shakdher3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.09.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDER & THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.A.No.994 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.13885 of 2017 K.Arumugam ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer TLC II Mettupalayam Power House Campus Sirumugai Road, Mettupalayam Coimbatore - 641 301.

3. The Superintending Engineer/GCC 182, Dr.Suhbbarayan Road, TATABAD Coimbatore - 641 012.

4. The Chief Engineer/Distribution Coimbatore Region Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road TATABAD Coimbatore - 641 012.

5. The District Collector Tiurppur.

... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.42046 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016.

W.P.No.42046 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 5th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. NO.8291/2016/vu4 dated 4.10.2016 quash the same consequently

directing the respondent to erect the electric towers in such a way that the electric line is laid passing through along with the border of the land in Alandur Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tirupur District (Id S. No.717) S.F. No.717/1A S. No.717/ 1B S.F. No.717/3 S.F. No.717/6A S.F. No.717/ 6B S.F.No.717/2A S.F. No.717/2B S.F. No.717/4 S.F. No.717/5 and S.F. No.717/7 covering an area of 6.19 acres of agricultural land. For Appellant : Mr.C.Deivasigamani For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Siva Shanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDER, J)

1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellant says that insofar as another landholder is concerned, the respondents have deviated from the plan evolved for erection of towers, whereas, in the appellant's case, despite request, the respondents did not agree to deviate from the plan, even though realignment is feasible.

1.1. On being queried, learned counsel for the appellant says that this fact came to notice only, after the order was passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, says that he will move an appropriate application to bring the said fact to the notice of the learned Single Judge, and, therefore would like to withdraw the present appeal, with liberty being given in that behalf.

3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for, albeit, in accordance with law. Consequently, connected application will stand closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsm