Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. Both the writ petitions have been preferred by common petitioner, in public interest. In one of the writ petition, W.P. No.27197/03, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to direct the persons, who have set up wind mills in violation of the guidelines to remove and relocate the same in accordance with the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent. The other writ petition, W.P. No.35214/04, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th Oct., 1994, issued by the Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Electricity Board), whereby it is intimated that in the NOC Proposal sent by Special Officer, Wind Energy Development Cell, Madurai, for 5 Nos., 250 KW WEGs in respect of M/s. Eagle Press Private Ltd., Madras, it is seen that the company has proposed the WEGs just 15 M from their boundaries. As the same is not desirable, the Special Officer has been requested to insist the companies to locate their WEGs atleast 15 mtrs., or ½ D + 5H distance, whichever is higher from the boundary. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3. The grievance as made in the writ petitions is based on general instructions purported to have been issued by the Electricity Board, wherein the following useful general information has been given :- "USEFUL GENERAL INFORMATION 1) Area required for 1 MW .. 25 acres 2) Estimated cost for 1 MW .. Rs.3 to Rs.4 Crores 3) Anticipated annual total energy generation in good windy areas .. 6 to 7 lakhs of with good performance machine of units (Kwh) 4) Life of the Wind Energy Generator .. 20 years with good Maintenance" 4. The petitioner has not stated the nature of such instruction, i.e, whether it is a statutory guideline issued by the Electricity Board or an information bulletin. Neither the booklet shows that the same has been issued by the order of the Electricity Board nor it has been shown to be issued under the signature of any of the authority. The petitioner has not stated the nature of such instruction, i.e, whether it is a statutory guideline issued by the Electricity Board or an information bulletin. Neither the booklet shows that the same has been issued by the order of the Electricity Board nor it has been shown to be issued under the signature of any of the authority. The information booklet, which noticed the wind energy as one of the base renewable sources of energy, a general information has been given that on the basis of demonstration all the wind farms have commissioned with the assistance of the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources/Tamil Nadu Energy Department Agency (TEDA) in different places for a total capacity of 19.355 MW. The Government of India instruction relating to lesser customs duty (only 25%) for the import of complete wind electrical generator; no payment of customs duty for import of spare of maintenance, etc., have been shown. Apart from that, the details of energy generated by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in its individual capacity and with the participation of the private wind energy generators has also been reflected therein. In the said bulletin, other useful general information has been given. 5. Apart from the aforesaid fact, from the useful general information, it appears that the area as required for useful 1 MW generation as shown therein do not relate to 25 acres of land, but relates to the open ariel area required for getting proper wind to run the mill. In any case, as the bulletin giving information to the person concerned cannot be taken into consideration to hold that the establishment of one or other wind mill as illegal, we are not inclined to grant any relief as sought for in these cases. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.