The Chairman vs. Tamilnadu Maha Sourashtra Sabha

Facts

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO) filed a review petition seeking to set aside a portion of a previous High Court order. The original writ petition was filed by the Tamil Nadu Maha Sourashtra Sabha, seeking a direction to the District Collector to instruct TANGEDCO to remove high-power electric lines and posts passing through the Sourashtra Girls Higher Secondary School. The High Court, in its previous order dated 06.11.2019, had directed TANGEDCO to bear the charges for laying underground cables. TANGEDCO, the review petitioner, argued that this direction was an error, as per their internal proceedings, private and government-aided schools should bear shifting costs on a 'DCW basis'. The school was later impleaded as the third respondent. TANGEDCO proposed to complete the project, including GST, for Rs. 4,037,842.

Held

The Court held that the previous order directing the Electricity Board to bear the entire cost of converting overhead high-tension electric wires to underground cables for the Sourashtra Girls Higher Secondary School was an error apparent on the face of the record. This was because the Court had not considered TANGEDCO's internal proceedings dated 11.04.2017 and 14.10.2017, which stipulated that for private and government-aided schools, the cost of shifting should be borne by the institution seeking the change. The Court also referred to a judgment in W.A.No.1164 of 2014, which held that permissible costs for shifting must be borne by the party seeking it. Consequently, the review petition was allowed, and the previous order was modified. The Electricity Board was directed to convert the overhead lines to underground cables upon payment of Rs. 4,037,842 by the school or any other person on its behalf. Only paragraph 6 of the previous order was reviewed, with the rest of the order remaining intact.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court's previous order directing the Electricity Board to bear the entire cost of shifting high-tension electric lines to underground cables for a private/aided school was an error apparent on the face of the record, considering the Electricity Board's internal proceedings and relevant precedents? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the interpretation and application of TANGEDCO's proceedings and judicial pronouncements). Petitioner's arguments (TANGEDCO): The previous order was erroneous because TANGEDCO's proceedings dated 11.04.2017 and 14.10.2017 mandate that for private and government-aided schools, the shifting work should be done on a 'DCW basis' (Deposit Cum Work basis), meaning the school should bear the cost. They relied on these proceedings. They also highlighted that the previous order did not consider these proceedings. Respondents' arguments (School): The School argued, citing a previous judgment in W.A.(MD)No.932 of 2010, that since their consent was not taken and no compensation was paid when the poles were initially laid, they should not bear the cost of underground cables. However, the Court found this argument unhelpful in light of subsequent judgments.