Judgment :- 1. This writ petition seeking mandamus has been filed by the petitioner institution stating that the High Tension Wire Towers which are to be erected in S.Nos. 138/1B1, 1B2A, 2A, 2B, 3, 7;139/1, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6B;140/1A, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, & 141/2 & 3 in Patta No.1796 belonging to the petitioner is causing great prejudice to the institution and the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the respondents to explore the possibility of alternative route which may involve lesser cost. 2. In this regard, the petitioner had already submitted a representation on 05.04.2011. In support of his representation a sketch has been submitted. Since no action has been taken, this writ petition has been filed on 11.04.2011. However, when the writ petition was heard after putting the respondents on notice and after hearing Mr. A.Selvendran, counsel appearing for the respondents, it is informed to this Court that the Superintending Engineer has considered the representation dated 05.04.2011 and declined to take the alternative route suggested by the petitioner by proceedings No.SE/GCC-II/CNI/HD/F.JYOTI/D./159/2011 dated 12.04.2011 and the same has been communicated to the petitioner on 18.04.2011. 3. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents should have given the petitioner an opportunity to explain the representation and the basis on which they have suggested the alternative route based on the sketch which they have submitted. Petitioner is willing to provide alternative routes in the said property so that the High Tension Wire can be set up with least disturbance to the institution and engineering college and it can be erected at a lesser cost. She relied upon the single Judge decision of this Court in W.P.No.36566 of 2007 dated 28.01.2008 wherein, it has been observed that authorities can inform the owner or the occupant before taking action for erection of the tower so that the alignment of the line can be settled without resistance or obstruction by mutual understanding or discussion. Placing reliance on this decision she pleaded that a proper opportunity should be given to the petitioner to establish their stand as above. 4. Placing reliance on this decision she pleaded that a proper opportunity should be given to the petitioner to establish their stand as above. 4. Having considered the order passed by the Superintending Engineer this Court is of the view that a mandamus as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the catena of decisions wherein it has been clearly held that prior notice is not required for the purpose of laying High Tension Wires. However, considering the plea of Smt.Nalani Chidambar, Senior Counsel, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a further representation with regard to the alternative route and the petitioner is entitled to represent before the Superintending Engineer the alternative route suggested. The authorities are at liberty to take appropriate decision on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim. 5. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.