( 1. ) THE petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 6 from installing the High Tension Wire Poles and windmills within 30 meters of the petitioner's agricultural land in Kaluneerkulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

( 2. ) I have heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Alagarthevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5, Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 6 and Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the seventh respondent.

The petitioner is the owner of the agricultural lands in Survey No. 75/7A, 75/7B, 75/7C and 75/7D, measuring an extent of about 2 acres in Kaluneerkulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The seventh respondent purchased adjoining land of an extent of 2 acres in Survey No. 75/8 and 75/8B for the purpose of erecting a windmill. After the seventh respondent started erecting the windmill, the petitioner came up with the above writ petition, seeking to prohibit the respondents from doing so.

( 3. ) THE grounds on which the petitioner seeks to prohibit the respondents from erecting and installing the windmill in the adjoining land are as follows:-

(i) that the seventh respondent did not take the permission of the Kaluneerkulam Panchayat, in terms of Section 160 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, before installing the windmill; (ii) that the location of the windmill is within 30 meters of the land of the petitioner, violating the prescription; and (iii) that the windmill is sought to be located within 64 meters of the residential houses and within one kilometer of the Village Tank.

( 4. ) BEFORE meeting the main contentions raised by the petitioner, Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the seventh respondent raised two preliminary objections viz., (i) that no writ petition would lie as against the seventh respondent which is a limited company; and (ii) that since the erection of the windmill has already been completed by the seventh respondent, the prayer for prohibitory order sought against the respondents 1 to 6 has already become infructuous.

I do not agree with the first contention. The seventh respondent may be a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. But the seventh respondent is erecting a windmill, for the purpose of generating and supplying electrical energy to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is an instrumentality of State. In any case when an element of public interest is involved, a writ would certainly lie. Therefore, the first preliminary objection is liable to be overruled.

( 5. ) IT is true that the prayer in the main writ petition is so worded that a Mandamus is sought only against the respondents 1 to 6, though it is the seventh respondent, who is installing the windmill. IT may be true that the windmill has also been installed. But so far it has not commenced operations. Therefore, the Court is always entitled to mould the relief and overlook the mistake in the manner in which the reliefs are worded. Hence the second preliminary objection is also overruled.

( 6. ) NOW let me take up the main contentions raised in the writ petition. As pointed out earlier, one of the objections taken by the petitioner is that the windmill is erected within 30 meters of the boundary line of his property. But there are a few factual disputes on this. It appears that another person has filed a suit in O.S.No.462 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi against the the seventh respondent herein seeking an injunction against the installation of the very same windmill. In that suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to measure the distance between the center point of the base of the windmill and the boundary of the land belonging to the plaintiff in that suit. The Commissioner appears to have filed a report pointing out that the distance is as prescribed.

In any case, this qu