HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.28825 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follow s:

“......to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to follow the Indian Electricity Rules Act, 1956 and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to install any electricity tower in front of petitioner’s house property bearing No. 32-206, situated at Shapurnagar, erstwhile Qutubullapur Gram Panchayath, presently under Qutubullapur Revenue Mandal, erstwhile under Medchal Taluq, Ranga Reddy District, presently under Medchal- Malkajgiri District, erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State, presently under Telangana State and pass…”.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that petitioner is the owner of the Plot bearing No.A, admeasuring 352 sq. yards or its equivalent to 294.31 sq. meters in Sy.No. 269 situated at Shapurnagar, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District and petitioner had been allotted House No.32-206. On 12.09.2024 at about 3.00 p.m., respondent Nos.2 and 3 have started digging hole below the petitioner’s property to install the 33 KV High tension Tower. The petitioner made a representation before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and again on 24.09.2024 at about 3.30 p.m., respondent Nos.2 and 3 started work but, later on the intervention of elders, they stopped the work. Again, on 14.10.2024 in the morning hours the respondents came to the petitioner’s property for installation of tower, when the petitioner and her family members objected for the same, they left the place. Hence, the writ petition.

4. Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 filed w ritten instructions and in particular para Nos.4, 5 and 6 are brought on record, w hich read as under:

“ 4. One of the main challenges identified during the survey of the junction is the existing 33 KV electricity tower, which stands in the middle of the road causes a major obstruction to the flow of vehicles. Due to its current position, the tower not only limits the efficient use of road space but also poses a significant safety risk to commuters. There is a real and imminent possibility of accidents involving fast-moving vehicles, particularly at busy hours, if the tower is allowed to remain in its current location. Hence, the relocation of the 33 KV tower has become necessary to ensure smooth traffic flow and to avoid any untoward incidents that might jeopardize public safety.

5. To facilitate the development of the junction, the plan includes aligning the 33 KV tower with other existing towers in the area, creating a uniform and orderly layout. Shifting the tower to the side of the road will provide the required space to create free left turns at each corner of the junction, ensuring that vehicles can move freely without hindrance or unnecessary delays. This alignment will further enhance the efficiency of traffic circulation, particularly at peak times, and improve safety for both motorists and pedestrians.

6. We also w ish to reassure the petitioner that no part of the petitioner's private property w ill be affected or disturbed as part of the shifting process. The relocation of the 33 KV tow er is confined entirely to public land w ithin the existing road limits. Every effort is being made to adhere to the rules and procedures laid out under the I ndian Electricity Rules, 1956, and ensure that the relocation is carried out follow ing all required technical and safety standards. The shifting process w ill also comply w ith the