ORDER: Notice of motion was ordered by this Hon’ble Court on this second appeal by learned Judge of this Court. After completion of service the second appeal is listed before me. Heard Ms.N. Krishnaveni learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V. Rengapashyam learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The suit is filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is having access to the road on the east of the first schedule property from every point of his property as well as a right to frontage to this entire length and for a consequential injunction restraining the Electricity Board from installing a transformer. The suit was dismissed on merits and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed on merits. 3. The plaintiff has a house on the West of North-South National Highway. There is a vacant land between the margin of the road and the plaintiffs property. The Plan produced before the Court is also produced before me. The vacant land available between the plaintiff’s house and the margin of the road belongs to the Highway Department. In other words, the plaintiff has no claim over that vacant land. In that vacant land transformer had been put up by the Electricity Board. The Courts below on appreciating the materials found that the plaintiff is not entitled to have the relief prayed for. Under Sec.42 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board has got the power for placing any wire, poles etc. etc. for distribution of electricity notwithstanding anything contained under Secs.12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act. In so doing the Board is authorised to exercise all the powers which the Telegraph Authority possess under Part 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985. Reading the provisions given above together, it is clear that the board’s power to install a transformer in respect of a private land is absolute and subject to in so ding they do not cause any damage to the property concerned and even if damage is likely to be caused to that proeprty, the landowner is only entitled to a compensation. But that is not the situation here since the transformer had been installed in the property belonging to the Highways Department. Installing a transformer is only in the interest of public. But that is not the situation here since the transformer had been installed in the property belonging to the Highways Department. Installing a transformer is only in the interest of public. On going through the materials available, I am unable to find that the access of the plaintiff to the property is in any way obstructed to or curtailed by the installation of the transformer as indicated in the Plan. If the case of the plaintiff that the owner of the property has absolute right to have access to the Highway from every point of the property is accepted, than in that situation, no transformer comes to be installed since necessarily a transformer comes to be installed in front the property belonging to one or other of the individual. 4. Therefore, I find that the Courts below have not committed any error at all in dismissing the suit concurrently. Consequently I find that there are no question of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.