M.Mohamad Kaja Maideen v. The Chairman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN M.Mohamad Kaja Maideen ... Petitioner - Vs. - 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., NPKRR Maligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The District Collector O/O of the District Collector Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi 3.The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli 4.The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District 5.The Inspector of Police Kayathar Police Station, Kayathar.
6.The Suzlon Energy Ltd Kayathar, Tirunelveli District ... Respondents Prayer : This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein 1 to 5, to consider the representation dated 09.08.2019 seeking to restraining the respondents and their men agents or any person claiming rights under them from erecting or putting up any poles or towers for passing or transmitting any electricity cables or wires through the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.579, 580,581,582,584 and 628 for the extent of 21.77 acres and in Patta No.2107, 2108, 2109, 2010, 2111 and 2112 situate at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District.
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Ramasamy For R1 to R5 : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor For R6 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates 1/13
ORDER
This Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein, to consider the representation, dated 09.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner, restraining the sixth respondent from claiming rights from erecting or putting up poles or towers for passing or transmitting any electricity cables or wires through the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District, he has also been cultivated without any hindrance. While being so, the sixth respondent illegally trespassed in his land without any permission from the petitioner in order to draw lines for transmitting high-tension electricity in the land, which is absolutely belongs to the petitioner.
He further submitted that the sixth respondent is a private concerned in nature and he has no right to enter into the petitioner's property without any permission, he is running a business only based on the profit oriented and the land proposed to be drawn over his land is a hightension line and it caused various issues, the petitioner could not cultivate his agricultural land, it would affect the farming of his land and as such he would sustain huge loss. Therefore, he submitted a detail representation to the respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action as against the sixth respondent and unfortunately, it is pending on their file without taking any action.
3.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that though the sixth respondent is a private concern, they are distributing electricity placed for public purpose as such, there is absolutely no consent is necessary from the concerned land owners to draw electricity lines over the land. He further submitted that now the high-tension line already erected from the wind energy system as directed by the Electricity Board for distribution to the public. The entire work has been completed and as such the present Writ Petition become infructuous. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that on the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 09.08.2019 they conducted enquiry and revealed that the sixth respondent as directed by the Electricity Board transmitted high-tension electricity cables already from there wind energy system above the petitioner's land and distributed to the general public. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
2/13
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent. 6.The petitioner is the owner of land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District. While being so, the sixth respondent erected wind mill energy system in their land and had contracted with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to distribute electricity energy to the general public as directed by the Electricity Board the sixth respondent have erected and had drawn high-tension electricity line to distribute the electricity energy to the general public.
It is also seen from the photographs produced by the learned counsel for the respondents revealed that the high-tension electricity line wire already drawn from the wind mill energy system for distribution. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court passed in S.A.Hakima Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District reported in 2016 (1) LW 535, as follows: "26.But, it is the reply of the learned counsel for the respondents/ Board that Section 164 of the 2003 Act is not inconsistency with Section 51 of 1910 Act and the entire section is parimateria with each other except for the word 'Notwithstanding'. Therefore, when the notification is issued under Section 164 of the 2003 Act, by conferring power upon the licencee/Board for placing electricity line, there is no need for obtaining consent from the land owner.
In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents/Board has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8844 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011, in the case of R.Santhana Raj and another Vs. The Chief Engineer, Non-Conventional Energy Source, Anna Salai, Chennai and others. The relevant portion in the said judgment reads as follows:- "40.
A combined reading of Section 67(2)(a) to (d) of the 2003 Act together with (I) Rule 3(1) and 3(4) of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006 (II) Section 164 of the 2003 Act and (III) Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraphic Act, 1885, would lead us to the following conclusions:- (i)In normal circumstances, the licensee would require the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any land, by virtue of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006, read with Section 76(2)(a) to (d) of the Electricity Act 2003.
(ii)But if the appropriate Government has, in terms of Section 164 of the 2003 Act, by order in writing, conferred upon any Public Officer or licensee, the powers of a telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for placing of electric lines or electric plant, then the 3/13
requirement of prior consent under Rule 3(1)(a) need not be complied with. This is in view of Rule 3(4) of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006.
(iii)In other words, if the appropriate Government hand passed an order empowering the licensee to exercise any of he powers conferred by the Telegraph Act, 1885, then the licensee can invoke Sections 10 and 11 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and simply enter upon any private land and carry out necessary works, without the prior consent of the owner. But if the appropriate Government had not passed any order in terms of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 conferring such a power upon the licensee, to exercise any power under the Telegraphic Act, then the licensee has to obtain prior consent of the owner or occupier, as per rule 3 (1)(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006 to carry out the works.
............
58.Therefore, in the light of the foregoing discussion, the following conclusions emerge:- (i)The provision of Section 12(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910, requiring the licensee to obtain consent of the owner or occupier of the land on which it is proposed to carry out certain works, stands repealed, in terms of Section 185 (1) and 185(2)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, with the issue of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 67(2) of the 2003 Act.
(ii)Primarily, Rule 3(1)(a) the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 requires the licensee to obtain the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land on which it is proposed to carry out certain works. (iii)If the owner or occupier refuses to give consent and raises objections, the licensee may obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, in terms of the first proviso under Rule 3(1).
(iv)But, in cases where powers are conferred upon the licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of Rule 3(1) to (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 will not apply. In other words, where the appropriate Government had conferred upon the licensee, the powers of a Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, the licensee need not take recourse to the procedure prescribed by Rules 3(1) to (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. But, the licensee shall take recourse to the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
(v)Since Section 164 of the 2003 Act, corresponds to Section 51 of the 1910 Act, the power conferred by the Government upon a licensee, in terms of Section 51 of the 4/13
1910 Act, is saved by Section 185(2)(a) of the 2003 Act. Therefore, the power conferred upon the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 51 of the 1910 Act, could continue to be exercised by the Board, as though those powers were conferred under Section 164 of the 2003 Act.
(vi)Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, does not contemplate "consent" or "permission" of the owner or occupier of a property, for the purpose of placing and maintaining a supply line, under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The only case where Section 10 contemplates permission is in respect of a property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority.
(vii)Though Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, does not make it incumbent upon the licensee to obtain permission of the owner or occupier, it does not also reduce his ownership or right of possession into something farcical. The right of the owner or occupier to resist or obstruct any act undertaken under Section 10, is recognised indirectly in Section 16(1), which requires the licensee to obtain an order of the District Magistrate, in such circumstances. A careful reading of Section 16(1) would show two things viz., (a)that the District Magistrate exercises his power under this section, in his discretion and (b) that what the District Magistrate does under Section 16(1) is akin to the removal of obstruction as ordered by an Executing Court in terms of Order XXI rules 97 and 98 of the Code. Any resistance on the part of the owner punishable offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. ...........
In this regard, one more reference could be placed in the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.36566 of 2007, dated 28.01.2008, in the case of T.S.T.Kaznavi Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, wherein it has been held as follows:- "21.Section 164 of the Electricity Act,2003, enables the appropriate Government to confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act, the powers of the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 for placing of electric lines and electrical plant for the transmission of the electricity, or for the purposes of a telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for the proper co-ordination of the works, etc. The said sections read as under:
"Section 164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.- The Appropriate Government may, by order in 5/13
writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885(13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained." Section 185. Repeal and saving.-
(1) .....
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,- (a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any licence, permission, authorisation or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any direction given under the repealed laws shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act;"
22.Thus by exercise of the powers under Sections 164 and 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act,2003 and in continuation of the powers already conferred under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910, the respondent Electricity Board acted as a telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 in performing the functions as State Transmission Utility. The relevant provision from Indian Telegraph Act,1885 reads as under:
"51. Exercise in certain cases of powers of telegraph authority.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 to 16 (both inclusive) and Section 18 and 19, the Central Government in the case of inter-State transmission system and the State Government in the case of inter-State transmission system, as the case may be, may, by order in writing, for placing of electric supply-lines, appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy or for the purpose of the telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, Central Transmission Utility, State Transmission Utility, licensee, Transmission licensee or any other person engaged in the business of 6/13
transmission or supplying energy to the public under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions (if any) as the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may think fit to impose, and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 any of the powers which the telegraph authority possess under the Act, with respect to the placing of telegraph-lines and posts for the purpose of a telegraph established or maintained by the government or to be so established or maintained."
23.While construing the provision of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, along with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, a Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Arya Antherjanam vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandraum (AIR 1996 Kerala 309 (FB)) held that in respect of cutting of trees for the purpose of erecting transmission lines, the land owners are entitled to claim compensation for diminution in market value of the property. A reading of the dictum laid down in the above judgments would show that once the powers are conferred upon the licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of Rule 3(1) to (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 will not apply and hence, in my considered opinion, the prior consent of the owners of the land is not mandatory for the Board to enter into the lands for the purpose of placing the electricity line or electricity poles for the transmission of electricity.
27.In the instant case, a notification under Section 164 of the 2003 Act vide G.O.(Ms).No.16, Energy (C3) Department, dated 23.02.2012 was issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, by conferring the powers on the licensee to place electricity lines for the transmission of electricity, which the telegraph authority possesses under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Central Act 13 of 1885). Therefore, the question of obtaining consent from the land owners does not arise in this case. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners based on Section 12(2) of the 1910 Act.
28.With regard to the second ground, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Board/respondents that if electricity line for transmission of electricity is placed for public purpose, absolutely no consent is necessary from the land owners under Section 12(2) of the 1910 Act. In other words, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that if electricity supply is effected for public purpose, Section 12(2) of the 7/13
1910 Act has no application. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Board/respondents has also invited the attention of this Court to Section 12(2) of the 1910 Act and submitted that the words 'not dedicated to public use' envisaged under Section 12(2) of the 1910 Act are only with reference to the works not dedicated to the public use. Thus, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that if the work is not dedicated to public use, then only the consent of the land owner is necessary." 7.This Court held that the prior consent of the land owners is not mandatory for the Electricity Board to enter into their land for the purpose of placing electricity line or electricity poles for the transmission of electricity. Further held that when the electricity is placed for public purpose there is absolutely no consent is necessary from the land owners under Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
8.In the case on hand, the sixth respondent erected wind mill energy system and draw the electric line for distribution of electricity energy to the public. Therefore, the electricity energy is placed for public purpose and as such there is no necessity to get consent from the land owners. 9.It is also relevant to rely upon the order of the Court in W.P.No.15077 of 2019, dated 26.06.2019 and the relevant portion as follows:
"13.In the opinion of this Court, the issues raised by the petitioners herein is no more res intergra in view of the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 and the judgment of this Court by the Division Bench in R.Raja and others. Vs. the District Collector, Dharmapuri and others in W.A.No.79 of 2019, dated 11.04.2019. (i). In Century Textile and Industries Limited case cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a project of laying of electrical transmission lines by a licensee, prior consent of the land owner/occupier not required. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that a project of national importance to benefit public at large and at verge of completion any change of alignment is not feasible and set aside the judgment of the High Court referring the matter to High powered committee for fixing quantum of compensation holding that it is contrary to Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. 8/13
(ii). In R.Raja and others Vs. the District Collector, Dharmapuri District cited supra, the Division Bench dealing with the same project has held as below:-
23. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act provides for a mechanism by which the Respondent No. 1 can approach the second Respondent, if there is an obstruction or resistance. It is not necessary that in each and every case the Respondent No. 1 will have to approach the second Respondent whenever there is an objection. The word objection has got a different connotation than the words resistance or obstruction. A resistance or obstruction would mean preventing the statutory body from carrying out the public duty. Whereas an objection is merely a form of protest. Further, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Respondent No. 2 has got no power to go into the merits of the case and find out as to whether the alignment proposed is correct or not and there is any possibility of realignment.
The prescription of Section16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is very specific to provide aid to the Respondent No. 1to perform its statutory duty. Considering the scope of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act vis~avis Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it has been held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Scindia Potteries v. Purolator India Ltd.MANU/DE/0189/1980 : AIR 1980 Delhi 157 as follows:9... The exercise of power under Section 10 is not conditional on compliance with the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act. The power given under Section 10 is absolute. It is only when there is a resistance or obstruction in the exercise of that power that the occasion to approach the District Magistrate arises.
If there is no resistance or obstruction, there is no occasion for the telegraph authority to approach the District Magistrate. The alleged oral protest relied upon by the Appellant appears to us to be a made up story. Two telegraph poles were affixed on the Appellants' property in February, 1974. The telephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time. Till the landlord/tenant dispute arose between the Appellant and M/S. Purolator India Ltd., no objection was raised by the Appellant. No doubt in April, 1978 the Appellant gave notice to the telegraph authority under Sections 17 and 19A of the Act and may be that the telephone connections in May, 1978 can be treated as the ones objected to but then Sections 17 and 19A have a different purport.
The resistance and obstruction envisaged by Section 16(1) of the Act is different. This will be clear on a reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. It is for the purpose of Section 188 I.P.C.
given under Section16(1) of the Act to the District Magistrate. Section 188, I.P.C. makes the disobedience of an order duly promulgated by the public servant an offence. Section 16 is really in aid of the discharge of statutory duty and exercise of statutory power postulated by Section 10.We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down therein.? 11. Thus, in view of the same, nothing more is to be stated. In fact, we have also called the officer concerned and perused the records. We also permitted the learned counsel for the appellants to do so. The officer has also explained the procedure which we have recorded supra. We do not find any malice in law or fact. The second respondent is carrying out its statutory duty. Now the entire project is over insofar as the appellants are concerned.
We may note that two of the writ petitioners also joined the other in filing the writ petitions after receiving compensation, which cannot be appreciated. Similarly, one of the appellants has also received the compensation amount. It is the appellants who approached the first respondent and for the reasons known, they did not appear for hearing. They have asked for numerous documents, which is for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings. Order under Section 16(1) of the Act was passed not only on the request of the appellants but also that of the second respondent. The role available to first respondent is rather limited. It is neither a supervisory nor an adjudicating authority over the second respondent.
When the element of expertise is involved and the same is undertaken by the statutory body as per law, the power of judicial review will have to be entertained with extreme caution. We cannot interfere with the matter on some apprehension expressed by the appellants. Now the substantial part of the project is over insofar as the appellants are concerned. We are not dealing with an acquisition per se. There is no material available to controvert the reasoning in the impugned orders. Admittedly, there is overwhelming public interest exists in favour of the second respondent. Every delay would cause serious financial implications among others. It might have a spiralling effect on the project as well. The appellants cannot ask the first respondent to direct the second respondent to furnish all the documents which they seek.
There is no arbitrariness in the procedure adopted by the second respondent. Certainly, the appellants can seek for appropriate compensation for the diminishing value of their lands caused by the overhead lines and erection of towers. Thus, we do not find any merits in this appeal.
10/13
14. The learned Single Judge in V.Shankar and others Vs. the District Collector, Dharmapuri, considering the objections which are almost similar to the objections raised in this Writ Petition dismissed the petition and summed up as below: It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioners along with some other persons had indulged in filing number of cases before the Courts with an idea to stall the entire project. It is contended that Crl.O.P.No.
28520 of 2018 was filed to forbear them from giving police protection in any manner aiding the Officials of the Power Grid Corporation Limited & the Revenue Officials in implementing the 800 KV Raigarh (HVDC Stn) Pugalur HVDC Stn) HDVC Bipole link with MW capacity, unless those Officials obtain enter upon permission under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or Works of Lincensees Rules, 2006. The said Crl.O.P was dismissed by this Court. This apart, even on earlier occasion, the petitioners filed writ petitions for a direction to dispose of the representation and the present writ petition is also challenging the order passed by the District Collector in proceeding dated 27.10.2018 for removal of the obstruction.
Citing all these cases, the learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the writ petitioners are frequently filing petitions after petitions before one Court or before the other Court to achieve their ill motives. Thus, the petitioners are in the habit of filing cases before various Courts and attempting to stall the national level project of installing transmission towers from Raigarh, Chattisgarh to Pugalur, State of Tamil Nadu. The conduct of the petitioners in filing several cases for the purpose of causing an obstruction are to be deprecated and such conduct can never be encouraged by the Courts.
15. This Court can have no second opinion about the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re A.K.Kraipak and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1969 (2) SCC 262, C.B.Gautham Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 (1) SCC 78 and others judgments cited by the petitioners reiterating the essence of natural justice principle namely audi alteram partem and Nemo judex in causa sua. As far as, the factual aspect of this case is concerned, as pointed out in the counter affidavit it is Rs.24,000 crores project to transmit power from Chattishgarh to Tamil Nadu covering 1843 kms. This project is going to benefit the people of Tamil Nadu who will be enjoying uninterrupted power Transmission. This project covers five states at the 11/13
total length of 1843 kms and substantial portion of the work is completed.
16. On the strength of the powers conferred upon the Power Grid Corporation, to enter upon the lands and to erect transmission, the 3rd and 11th respondents are carrying out the project. If really there is any element of damage, which are peculiar to the petitioners and others, they have every right to make their representation to the District Collector, to increase the height of the Tower so as to avoid passing of electrostatic field near or under their house. At about 345 kms of transmission lines are likely to pass through the state of Tamil Nadu under this project. It is not that at all points, the effect of the electrostatic field is felt. If at all at any point, the flow of electrostatic field is felt, it is always open to them to represent the Authorities of the Officers of 4th and 11th respondents, to attend the defects.
17. It is a sorry state of affairs that despite clear pronouncements of this Court on various occasions on this project, time and again under one pretext or other, writ petitions are filed on mis-information being percolate among public through sensational and irresponsible news. Those persons are bound to introspect themselves whether they are truly exposing the cause of public.
18. After enjoying all comforts of electricity in their homes and business establishment, making fake protest for public consumption and mislead the pubic to stall the project, which by and large going to provide uninterpreted electricity supply, is only an attempt by some vested interest through the petitioners to keep the state in dark and perennial starvation for electricity. This Court cannot be privy to the said evil design." 10.This Court held that on the strength of powers conferred upon the power grid corporation, to enter upon the lands and to erect transmission, there is absolutely no consent is necessary from the concerned land owners.
11.The above judgments are squarely applied to the case on hand and the sixth respondent is being supplying electricity energy to the general public, the sixth respondent need not get prior consent from the land owners viz., the petitioner herein, to draw the electricity lines. That apart, now the entire drawing of electric line has been over and the high-tension electricity lines erected over the land of the petitioner and distributing the electricity 12/13
energy to the general public. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition and this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made by the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
12.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., NPKRR Maligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The District Collector O/O of the District Collector Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi 3.The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli 4.The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District.
5.The Inspector of Police Kayathar Police Station, Kayathar.
+1 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-88116[F] dated 20/09/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.RAMASAMY, Advocate ( SR-88244[F] dated 20/09/2019 ) 19.09.2019 LS MS/24.09.2019/13P.8C 13/13