Arumugasamy v. The Principal Secretary / Chairman And Managing Director,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Arumugasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary / Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Annasalai, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, District Collector Office Campus, 3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sathur, 5.The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Race Course Road, Madurai.

1/7

6.The Executive Engineer / Civil, 765, K.V./ Electricity Transmission Scheme, 7.The Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, 8.The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

9.The Village Administrative Officer, Maruluthu Village, Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent Na.Ka.C4/18049/2022 dated 06.06.2025 insofar as the petitioner concern and quash the same as illegal and to direct the Respondents No.1 and 5 to 7 to install the tower No. 8/2 as per the prior entry permission order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.C4/18049/2022 dated 11.02.2022 and in accordance with the already sanctioned route map and corridor of the scheme transmission line route and to consequently direct the respondent 1 and 5 and 7 to rectify the deviated contradictory installation of the tower No.8/2 and to reinstall them in its original approved place of location at 822457.453 Easting, 1053134.932 Northing, 9.30'53.28'' latitude 77 56'12.38'' longitude of UTM Zone 43 as per the Tower Schedule approval dated 18.03.2020 given by the first respondent.

2/7

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Santhakumaresan For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader for R.2, R.4, R.8 & R.9 Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel for R.1, R.5 to R.7 Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.3

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Virudhunagar under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The case of the writ petitioner is that the transmission line route had been deliberately altered to favour some powerful entities and as a result of the deviation in the route, he has been put to great loss and hardship.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 3/7

4.I am not able to grant any relief for more than one reason. Firstly, these are matters which have technical implications. The writ Court is not an expert body and it lacks the expertise to dictate the particular route through which transmission lines should be laid. When the authorities have already decided the issue, it is not for the writ Court to go into the issue once again.

5.Secondly, the towers have already been installed. The petitioner seeks reinstallation. When once the project has already been implemented, it will not be in public interest to dismantle the structure that had already been put and re-align the route. In such cases, the only remedy available to the affected party is to receive the fullest compensation. The District Collector, Virudhunagar would ensure that compensation is paid to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by its quantum, the petitioner can always go before the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner can accept the compensation originally determined without prejudice his claim to seek enhancement. If the petitioner files any petition before the jurisdictional Court seeking enhancement, the same will be numbered immediately and disposed of on merits and in 4/7

accordance with law within a period of eight months thereafter. If the compensation amount has not been paid to the petitioner already, enquiry shall be held by the District Collector and the compensation shall be fixed within a period of four weeks and disbursed shortly thereafter. 6.With the aforesaid liberty to the writ petitioner,this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

07.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Principal Secretary / Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Annasalai, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, District Collector Office Campus, 3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, 5/7

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sathur, 5.The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Race Course Road, Madurai.

6.The Executive Engineer / Civil, 765, K.V./ Electricity Transmission Scheme, 7.The Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, 8.The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar, 9.The Village Administrative Officer, Maruluthu Village, Virudhunagar, 6/7

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA 07.11.2025 7/7