Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2467
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. RAJASURIA, J.
M. Manoharan
Versus
Assistant Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Cuddalore & Others
S.A. Nos. 936 & 937 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided on : 17-07-2013
For the Appellant:A. Muthukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Viswanathan, Advocate for EB.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Electricity Board has no right to install overhead electricity lines across private property without consent, as per the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004.
Headnote:
Electricity Board - Property Dispute - Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Section 12(2) - Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, Rule 27(6)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to remove electricity over-head lines passing across their property and claimed damages for mental agony caused by the defendants' conduct. The trial court granted the injunction but dismissed the claim for damages. The first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the Electricity Board and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Electricity Board had no right to take overhead electricity lines across private houses, as per the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. The court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and restored the trial court's decision to grant mandatory injunction. The claim for damages was rejected due to the officials' lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions.
Issues: The issues included the authority of the Electricity Board to install overhead lines across private property, the applicability of precedents, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 to establish that the Electricity Board had no right to install overhead electricity lines across private property without consent. The lack of knowledge of these provisions by the officials led to the rejection of the claim for damages.
Final Decision: The court set aside the first appellate court's judgment, granted mandatory injunction, and ordered the Electricity Board to remove the overhead electric line at its cost within three months. The second appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
1. These two second appeals are focussed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgments and decrees dated 31.08.2009 passed in A.S.Nos.23 of 2008 and 16 of 2008 respectively by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional District
Munsif, Chidambaram in O.S.No.242 of 2006.
2. The parties, for thesake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely germane for the disposal of these two second appeals would run thus:
a) The warp and woof of the averments in the plaint could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
The respondent Electricity Board on 18.03.2006 at the instigation of the local Panchayat Board president, who had animosity and enemity, antipathy and abomination, detest and dislike as against the plaintiff caused the officials of the Electricity Board to make the electricity over-head line to pass aerially across the house of the plaintiff. Despite objections raised by the plaintiff, there was no positive response from them. Hence the suit seeking the following reliefs: To pass a decree for mandatory injunction - directing the defendants to remove the poles and the electrical power supply over head lines erected and drawn over the suit property - to pass a decree for Rs.10,000/- as damages for the mental agony and distress cased to the plaintiff by the illegal and unlawful conduct of the defendants and for costs.
(extracted as such)
b) In a bid to torpedo the averments in the plaint, D1 filed the written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants. On 20.03.2006, no such High Tension electric over headline was taken over the property of the plaintiff. No new electricity pole was fixed as alleged. The over head line wires alone were changed. The electricity board has got the power to take over head electricity line across the property of even the plaintiff. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. c) Issues were set down by the trial court for trial, during which, on the plaintiff's side, P.W s.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the defendants' side,
D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. d] Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit granting mandatory injunction as prayed for as against the defendants. However, the claim for damages was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the claim for damages, the plaintiff preferred the appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2008 and the defendants preferred the appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2008 challenging and impugning the mandatory injunction granted against them. e) By separate judgments, the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the Electricity Board and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff claiming damages. f] Challenging and impugning the two judgments and decrees of the first appellate court, these two second appeals have been focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds and also suggesting various substantial questions of law. g) My learned predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law at the time of admitting the second appeals. (substantial question of law No.1 in S.A.No.936 of 2010) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in negativing the relief of mandatory injunction after having held that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff?
(substantial question of law No.1 in S.A.No.937 of 2010) When the defendants admittedly have put up poles and drawn overhead High Tension lines over the suit property whether the lower appellate court erred in law negativing the relief of compensation after having held that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff? and the following one and the same substantial question of law Nos.2 to 6 in both the second appeals.
(ii) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in not drawing adverse inference against the defendants for not producing an
