P.Devakannu, v. The Superintending Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA P.Devakannu .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Trichy District.

2.The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Mannachanallur, Trichy District.

3.The Tahsildar, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.

.. Respondents (R3 is Suo Motu Impleaded Vide Court Order dated 10.03.2020) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-locate the Electric Transformer erected inside and in front of the petitioner's compound wall at Plot No.6, Sakthi Nagar, Palaiyur, Thirupaingeeli, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District to some other

place by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2018. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for the following relief : "directing the respondents to re-locate the Electric Transformer erected inside and in front of the petitioner's compound wall at Plot No.6, Sakthi Nagar, Palaiyur, Thirupaingeeli, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District to some other place by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2018."

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had constructed new house at the above referred address and had kept it locked for over six months as he was residing in his Srirangam house. When he returned, he was shocked to see the electric transformer had been erected outside his compound wall obstructing access to his property. The petitioner had

approached the 2nd respondent to relocate the transformer. Despite several requests, the respondents had not taken any steps to relocate the transformer and therefore, the petitioner had sent a representation, dated 22.02.2018 to the 2nd respondent in this regard. Since there was no response, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsels on either side.

4. From the papers enclosed along with the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner had put up his house in the year 2016 itself. The transformer has been erected right in front of the petitioner's house and the access has been blocked. The transformer has been put up only after the construction of the petitioner's house which is evident from the perusal of the photographs attached to the writ petition.

5. Therefore, the respondents are directed to take steps to relocate the transformer at their expenses within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order considering the fact that the

respondents have not even paid attention to the fact that the installation of the transformer would obstruct the access to the property. The act of the respondents is totally a case of non application of mind.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

11.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Trichy District.

2.The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Mannachanallur, Trichy District.

3.The Tahsildar, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.

P.T.ASHA, J.

gbg 11.09.2025