The central legal point established in the judgment is that a landowner has the right to demand the shifting of an electric transformer from their land if there is no consent from the previous or present owner, and the landowner may not be obligated to pay the shifting charges if not classified as a 'consumer' under the relevant electricity supply code.

1. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking to call for the records relating to the Letter dated 02.01.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent vide., No.Vu.Po./E.Pe/SAM/KO.DCW/No.419/2012, and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to shift the electric transformer from the petitioner's land comprised in New S.No.73/11C, Pottaneri Nalla Goundanpatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, without insisting shifting cost.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the land in Old S.No.73/4D1B (New S.No.73/11C), situated in Pottaneri Nalla Goundanpatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, to the extent of 12 cents. She purchased the said property by registered sale deed dated 10.05.2010. According to the petitioner, the Electricity Board has erected Electric Transformer in the said land, before her purchase, and the Electricity Board did not get any consent from her vendor and did not pay any compensation to her vendor; erecting Electric Transformer without getting any consent from the land owner and without paying any compensation, is not correct, and since she has purchased the said property, the Electricity Board will have to shift the Electric Transformer from the petitioner's land to the some other place.

3. The petitioner had also agreed to pay the reasonable charge for shifting the transformer and she has made necessary application to the Electricity Board for shifting the Transformer. The Electricity Board vide its reply dated 02.01.2013 informed the petitioner that she has to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,350/-within seven days, towards the cost of shifting the transformer from her land to some other place, failing which permission granted for shifting the transformer would be cancelled. Hence, the petitioner caused a legal notice to the Electricity Board. Since the action of the Electricity Board is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and Indian Electricity Act, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition, contending that when there is no consent either from the erstwhile owner or from the petitioner, installation of the transformer within the premises of the petitioner is illegal.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Electricity Board submitted that consent of the erstwhile owner was taken, but the same was verbally given and there was no evidence to the effect that the consent was given in writing. Further, the Electric Transformer was erected as early as on 09.11.1989 and at no point of time, the erstwhile owner had objected to it and since it was beneficial to the erstwhile owner and other persons, he kept quite and allowed the erection of transformer in that place. Since the transformer has been in existence there for more than 11 years, the petitioner's contention that no consent was taken from the erstwhile owner for erecting the transformer is incorrect. He further contended that as per the Electricity Board Laws, for shifting the transformer, amount has got to be paid by the consumer and the Electricity Board has right to demand the aforesaid amount. In case, the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the permission granted for shifting the transformer would be cancelled, which is fully justified by the Electricity Board Laws. Since the Transformer was erected with the consent of the erstwhile owner of the land, the question of payment of compensation does not arise in this case.

5. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board has further submitted that for the entire area in Pottaneri Nalla Goundampatti Village, the electricity is being supplied with the help of the present transformer, which is in existence in the petitioner's land. When the petitioner demands that it should be shifted, she will have to pay the shifting charges, and as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot demand for shifting. Nearly after 25 years, the petitioner is s