P.Velusamy v. The District Collector

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that TANGEDCO had erected and installed their poles in the petition mentioned water canal.

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, it has been clarified by the jurisdictional Tashildar as well as TANGEDCO that the poles had been laid only on the bund and not on the water bed.

4.Recording the said submission, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

26.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:-

1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

2.The Thasildhar,

3.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyakulam, Theni District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias

26.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN P.Velusamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Thasildhar, 3.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyakulam, Theni District. 4.The Superintending Engineer, Theni Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Theni Town & District. 5.The Executive Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Periyakulam, 6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Distribution West), TANGEDCO, ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to protect and preserve water canal in survey Nos.306 and 310 of the Genguvarpatti village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District and consequently prohibit the respondents 4 to 6 from erecting any E.B. poles or drawing H.T.Lines or any other wire lines through the water canal situated in survey Nos.306 and 310 of Genguvarpatti Village. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Nataraj, Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3. Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel for R4 to R6.