Madras High CourtWP(MD)/25054/2024disposed of

C. Thangaraja v. The Superintending Engineer

2025-07-09Honourable Mr Justice C. Saravanan10 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)No.25054 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.21332 of 2024 C.Thangaraja

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 4.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Power Line, 230/110KV, Electric Sub Station, Chenbagaramanpudur, Kanyakumari District - 629 304. 5.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.

...Respondents

1/10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent in Ka.No.E.ni.po./ Vni/Kanni/Ko.Kattu/A.No.251/2020, dated 18.05.2020, and subsequent online cancellation order passed by TANGEDCO, dated 05.08.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to provide electricity connection for the petitioner's building situates at Survey No.347/2A, Leepuram Revenue Village, South Kundal, Panjalingapuram Village Panchayat, Kanyakumari District.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vinothkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner has put up a commercial building in the year 2020, pursuant to the planning permission obtained by the petitioner dated 28.02.2020, vide Building Plan Approval No.25/2019-20, from the Panjalingapuram Village Panchayat. After the construction was completed, the petitioner made an application for Electricity Connection on 12.07.2024, for the aforesaid commercial building. The 5th respondent appears to have given a report to the petitioner wherein the petitioner has been informed that there is no scope for giving electricity connection to the petitioner in the light of the presence of the high tension line that is crossing above the building. 2/10

2.The relevant portion of the communication issued to the petitioner on 18.05.2020, by the 5th respondent reads as under:- 3/10

4/10

3.Pursuant to the above said communication, the application of the petitioner has been rejected vide online communication dated 05.08.2024. 4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection is contrary to Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the distance between the terrace and the high tension wire is more than 7.2 metres and the gap that is required to be maintained is, much lessor and therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for commercial connection is arbitrary and therefore, liable to be interfered with. That apart, he submitted that the commercial complex which was built in the year 2020, has not been given power connection for the past 5 years and it has not been put to use and therefore, the petitioner suffers monetarily every day on account of the arbitrary action of the respondents.

5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the rejection of the application is correct as the clearances from buildings of high and extra-high voltage lines contemplated under Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, is not satisfied and therefore, the petitioner 5/10

does not come challenging impugned online communication dated 05.08.2024, does not merit any reference. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not pressing for any relief for quashing for the report of the 5th respondent, dated 18.05.2020. 6.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

7.Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, is extracted as under: "Clearances from buildings of high and extra-high voltage lines-

(1) Where a high or extra-high voltage overhead line passes above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line, of not less than- (a) For high voltage lines upto and including 33,000 volts 3.7 metres (b) For extra-high voltage lines 3.7 metres plus 0.30 metre for every additional 33,000 volts or part thereof.

(2) The horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of such building shall, on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind pressure, be not less than6/10

(a) For high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts 1.2 metres (b) For high voltage lines above 11,000 volts and up to and including 33,000 volts 2.0 metres (c) For extra-high voltage lines 2.0 metres plus 0.3 metre for every additional 33,000 volts for part thereof.

8.As per Rule 80(2)(a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, for high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts, the horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of the building shall, on the basis of the maximum deflection due to wind pressure, should not be less than 1.2 metres. It appears that the building of the petitioner satisfies the requirement of Rule 80(1)(b) and Rule 82(3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. 9.Therefore, I direct the 5th respondent to give a proper report to the respondents in the presence of the petitioner for giving electricity connection. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be given adequate notice before the inspection carried out by the 5th respondent.

7/10

10.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 09.07.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 8/10

C.SARAVANAN , J.

RJR W.P.(MD)No.25054 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.21332 of 2024 09.07.2025 10/10