Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. RAJASURIA, J.
M. Manoharan
Versus
Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District and Others
S.A. Nos. 936 and 937 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided on: 17 July 2013
A. Muthukumar, for Appellant
V. Viswanathan for EB, for Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Electricity Board has no right to place electric supply lines across private buildings 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 damages claim. 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 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 Electricity Board officials' lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions.
Issues: The issues included the grant of mandatory injunction, compensation for damages, and the applicability of legal provisions and precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, which clearly stated that the Electricity Board had no right to place electric supply lines across private buildings without consent. The court also considered the lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions by the Electricity Board officials in rejecting the damages claim.
Final Decision: The court set aside the first appellate court's judgment, granted mandatory injunction, and rejected the damages claim. The Electricity Board was ordered to remove the overhead electric line running across the plaintiff's property at its own cost within three months.
1. These two second appeals are focussed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgments and decrees dated 31.8.2009 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 the sake 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 18.3.2006 at the instigation of the local Panchayat Board president, who had animosity and enmity, 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 20.3.2006, no such High Tension electric over headline was taken over the property of the plaintiff. No new electricity pole was fixed as alleged. The overhead 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.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits A-1 to A9 were marked. On the defendants’ side, D.W.1 was examined and Exhibits B-1 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 focused 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 a
