The Electricity Board has the right to lay down or place electric supply lines in a public street without the consent of the neighbouring property owner.

1. Plaintiffs In O.S. No. 1360 of 1989 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Erode, Periyar District are the appellants. Suit filed by them was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants from erecting a transformer in front of the suit property (Door No. 168, Sathy Road) having its rear portion facing Nehru Street and for consequential reliefs. It is stated in the plaint that the schedule property belonged to the plaintiffs as per family partition deed dated 1.7.1987. In the property there is a non-residential building. It is having its frontage facing Sathy Road, which runs east to west. On the immediate east of the property a North South road runs and its is called Nehru Street. The suit property has got its rear portion facing Nehru Street and it forms one block. The width of Nehru Street is about 50 feet. There is also a zinc steel roof structure in the property. It is alleged that after shifting the bus stand to Sathy Road and after formation of Periyar District with Erode as Headquarters, there is a steep rise in the price of the properties in and around Sathy and Nehru Street.

The reason for filing this suit is that the defendants wanted to erect a transformer at Nehru Street According to the plaintiffs, there is already an existing transformer belonging to the defendants in Sathy Road and without the consent either oral or written, the defendants are attempting to erect a transformer in the rear portion of the suit property facing Nehru Street. For the said purpose, they have dug pits near the rear portion of the suit property. It is said that it is only at the instance of certain political parties such an attempt is being made. By erecting a transformer in front of the suit property is illegal, arbitrary and capricious and against the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the schedule therein and also against the principles of natural justice. The defendants have not given any intimation to the plaintiffs about the proposed installation of a transformer. If the transformer is allowed to be installed, it will put the plaintiffs to great hardship and they may not be in a position to put up a new building in the vacant site.

2. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is admitted that they want to instal it in the western side of Nehru Street and the same is a public property and the plaintiffs are not entitled to object the proposed erection of the transformer by alleging that it is a hindrance to their ingress and egress to the suit property nor it is going to affect the value of the suit property. The plaintiffs are not entitled to object the erection of the transformer at the public place which do not belong to them. The Board is also not expected to get any written or oral consent from the plaintiffs. Public interest requires that a transformer had to be installed to maintain voltage regulation within the statutory limit. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. The trial court marked Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and C.1 and C.2 oral evidence consisted of P.W.1 plaintiff and an officer of the Board as D.W.1. The trial court found that the defendants are entitled to instal a transformer in a public street and the plaintiffs are not entitled to object the same. It further held that no evidence had been let in to show that by installing a transformer in Nehru Street, any damage will be caused to the plaintiffs’ property or the right of ingress and egress. It also came to t he conclusion that for the purpose of maintaining voltage stability, the transformer is to be installed and that is in public interest. It also came to the conclusion that by installing the transformer, no inconvenience will be caused to the plaintiffs in enjoying their building. The suit was dismissed with cost.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment, plaintiffs preferred A.S. No. 6 of 1997 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The lower appellate court also confirmed t