1. When the matter came up for hearing on 20.11.2013, this Court, having regard to the averments made in the supporting affidavit, passed the following order;

"The petitioner, resident of the premises, at old door No.26/27, new door No.16, Venkatesan Naicker, second street, Anna Salai, Chennai 2, has sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the present installation of heavy machineries, transformer, etc. on the eastern side of the petitioner's house and to put up the same, on the vacant land available, in the same street.

2. As per the supporting affidavit, new transformer installed is just two feet away from the petitioner's shop, which is in a portion of the building and that the proximity of the transformer and other machineries, endanger lives of the occupants of the building. In the supporting affidavit, it is also contended that, about 300 to 500 metres away from the petitioner's premise, there is a vacant place with the same road margin and that the respondents 2 and 3 could have very well utilised the said place for installation of the transformer and other machineries.

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 14.11.2013, Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for TNEB, was directed to take notice and to get instructions. It is now represented by the learned counsel that, after the installation of the transformer, the same has been energised. Photographs enclosed at page Nos.28 to 30 of the typed set of papers, indicate the proximity of the transformer with the premises, in which the petitioner's shop is lcoated and that at page no.30, some vacant space is also shown.

4. Though it is stated that the supply line has been energised, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to submit a report on 26.11.2013 as to the feasibility of considering the request of the petitioner for shifting the transformer. They are further directed to submit a detailed report with photographs of the area, distance between the premises of the petitioner and the existing transformer, along with a detailed sketch.

Post on 26.11.2013"

2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for TNEB, has filed a counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated that a representation was made by the local people complaining frequent low-voltage and interruption of power supply causing hardship to the residents as well as to the students. It is further stated that the local people also threatened a road roko. Therefore, after ascertaining the field study, orders were issued in memo No.CED/CNR/EEtech/F.Imp.Est.T2-65/13-14/D.1717/2013, dated 18.09.2013, by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Chennai North Region, sanctioning a sum of Rs.11,98,660/- for erection of a transformer. He further submitted that all the streets in the area are narrow and that there is no wide road or open public space in that area, and the place, where the transformer is erected, is in the public road. In the said place, there is also a load centre. The distance between the wall and the transformer is 1.2 metres and it is well within the parameter prescribed under Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules. The Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M), Chennai / third respondent herein, has further submitted that between the wall and the distribution transformer pole, a pillar is already there and that the clearance between the post and the pillar is 0.2 metres, the pillar width is 1 metre, pillar and distribution transformer width is 0.65 metre, and the total distance between the wall and post is 1.65 metres. To substantiate the above said contentions, photographs have also produced. According to the Assistant Executive Engineer(O & M), Chennai, the distance between the window and top of the distribution transformer is more than 1.5 metres.

3. On the basis of the above pleadings and materials, Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for TNEB, submitted that sufficient safeguards have been taken by the Electri