← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/23964/2016dismissed

N.Avina Beevi v. The Superintending Engineer

2016-12-16Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.12.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD) No.23964 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.17287 of 2016 N.Avina Beevi ... Petitioner -vs1.

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Pudukkottai.

2.

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, TANGEDCO, Pudukkottai.

3.

The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Tower Lines, Pudukkottai.

4.

The Junior Engineer (No.230), TANGEDCO, SIPCOT, Pudukkottai.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from planting and erecting any electrical towers in the property of the petitioner and also drawing of over head high tension electrical lines across the property of the petitioner in S.F.No.672/6 acre 0.45 cents at Mullur Village, Pudukkottai Taluk and District.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Singan For Respondents : M/s.S.Rajeswari for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha *****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to forbear from planting and erecting any electrical towers in the property of the petitioner and also drawing of over head high tension electrical lines across the property of the petitioner in S.F.No.672/6 acre 0.45 cents at Mullur Village, Pudukkottai Taluk and District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. From the records produced by the petitioner, it is seen that she has sent a representation to the respondents, objecting to

mounting of electrical towers in her property only on 12.12.2016 and immediately thereafter, she rushed to this Court on the same day, before the said representation could reach the hands of the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition is highly premature and this Court is not inclined to issue any direction at this stage.

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents have received the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2016 only on 15.12.2016 and the respondents need some breathing to take a decision thereon.

5. Under such circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed as premature. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in case the respondents fail to take any action on her representation within a reasonable time. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS I) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

+1 cc to Mr.V.Singan,Advocate,Sr.No.81480 ar AAM ME 24.01.2017 2P 2C W.P.(MD) No.23964 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.17287 of 2016 16.12.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/