JUDGMENT 1. When the matter came up for hearing on 20.11.2013, this Court, having regard to the averments made in the supporting affidavit, passed the following order; "The petitioner, resident of the premises, at old door No.26/27, new door No.16, Venkatesan Naicker, second street, Anna Salai, Chennai 2, has sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the present installation of heavy machineries, transformer, etc. on the eastern side of the petitioner's house and to put up the same, on the vacant land available, in the same street. 2. As per the supporting affidavit, new transformer installed is just two feet away from the petitioner's shop, which is in a portion of the building and that the proximity of the transformer and other machineries, endanger lives of the occupants of the building. In the supporting affidavit, it is also contended that, about 300 to 500 metres away from the petitioner's premise, there is a vacant place with the same road margin and that the respondents 2 and 3 could have very well utilised the said place for installation of the transformer and other machineries. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 14.11.2013, Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for TNEB, was directed to take notice and to get instructions. It is now represented by the learned counsel that, after the installation of the transformer, the same has been energised. Photographs enclosed at page Nos.28 to 30 of the typed set of papers, indicate the proximity of the transformer with the premises, in which the petitioner's shop is lcoated and that at page no.30, some vacant space is also shown. 4. Though it is stated that the supply line has been energised, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to submit a report on 26.11.2013 as to the feasibility of considering the request of the petitioner for shifting the transformer. They are further directed to submit a detailed report with photographs of the area, distance between the premises of the petitioner and the existing transformer, along with a detailed sketch. Post on 26.11.2013" 2. They are further directed to submit a detailed report with photographs of the area, distance between the premises of the petitioner and the existing transformer, along with a detailed sketch. Post on 26.11.2013" 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for TNEB, has filed a counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated that a representation was made by the local people complaining frequent low-voltage and interruption of power supply causing hardship to the residents as well as to the students. It is further stated that the local people also threatened a road roko. Therefore, after ascertaining the field study, orders were issued in memo No.CED/CNR/EEtech/F.Imp.Est.T2-65/13-14/D.1717/2013, dated 18.09.2013, by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Chennai North Region, sanctioning a sum of Rs.11,98,660/- for erection of a transformer. He further submitted that all the streets in the area are narrow and that there is no wide road or open public space in that area, and the place, where the transformer is erected, is in the public road. In the said place, there is also a load centre. The distance between the wall and the transformer is 1.2 metres and it is well within the parameter prescribed under Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules. The Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M), Chennai / third respondent herein, has further submitted that between the wall and the distribution transformer pole, a pillar is already there and that the clearance between the post and the pillar is 0.2 metres, the pillar width is 1 metre, pillar and distribution transformer width is 0.65 metre, and the total distance between the wall and post is 1.65 metres. To substantiate the above said contentions, photographs have also produced. According to the Assistant Executive Engineer(O & M), Chennai, the distance between the window and top of the distribution transformer is more than 1.5 metres. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings and materials, Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for TNEB, submitted that sufficient safeguards have been taken by the Electricity Board, in erecting the transformer, in accordance with the Electricity Laws and more particularly, with reference to Rule 80 of the Electricity Laws. However, during the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that transformers have been erected with lesser height, namely, Ring Main Unit (RMU), but, it is expensive. However, during the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that transformers have been erected with lesser height, namely, Ring Main Unit (RMU), but, it is expensive. According to the Assistant Engineer, present in the Court, conversion of the normal distribution transformer to RMU is being done in a phased manner in the City of Chennai. The submission of the Assistant Engineer, Chennai, is placed on record. 4. From the pleadings and the materials placed before this Court, it could be seen that, in response to the representation made by the residents of Venkatesa Naicken second street, that there was frequent interruption of power supply and low voltage causing hardship to the students of the said locality, officials of the Electricity Department have decided to provide distribution transformer and their field study have revealed that all the streets, in the said area, are narrow and that there is no wide road or open public space. Hence, in order to resolve the above said problem, the respondents have chosen the present location, where there is already a load centre. After assessing technical feasibility and cost for erecting transformer, orders have been issued by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Chennai North Region, in memo No.CED/CNR/EEtech/F.Imp.Est.T2-65/13-14/D.1717/2013, dated 18.09.2013, which is extracted hereunder: "The estimate amounting to Rs.11,98,660/- Gross and Nett, chargeable to TANGEDCO towards erection of a Tpole structure with 1 No. 250KVA DT at venkatesan Naicken second street in the 11 KV LIC feeder off Annasalai 33/11KV SS in order to (1) reduce the load on the nearby Burrah Sahib 4P SS 500KVA DT fed from the Balamuthu feeder off 33/11KV Govt. Estate SS under improvement works (2) improve the voltage at the tail end of the distribution network (3) accommodate future load growth, and (4) have flexibility in transfer of loads during emergencies, is hereby approved subject to availability of provision in the Budget. It is also technically sanctioned and registered as CED/CNR No.71 of 2013-14 under A/c code 14.656 of improvement works. By virtue of the provision contained in Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, TANGEDCO being the Licensee and successor entity of TNEB will exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the provision of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which have already been conferred upon the Board under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The work may be taken up only after making provision in the approved budget for the relevant period." 5. Pursuant to the above said order, the respondents have also erected the transformer and energised. The distance between the window and top of the distribution transformer is stated to be more than 1.5 metres. Though the petitioner has contended that installation of transformer would endanger human lives, it is for the Electricity Department to consider the technical feasibility for providing electricity and to carry out the works of installation of towers, distribution of transformer and certainly, safety of the occupants is one of the aspects, which the electricity department has to take note of it. In the case on hand, inasmuch as there is no wide road or open public place in that area, the Electricity Department has no other option, except to install the distribution transformer in the present location, which is stated to be more than 1.5 metres between the window and top of the distribution transformer. 6. In the light of the above submissions and the materials placed before this Court, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioner. However, having regard to the submission of the Assistant Engineer, present in the Court, that the existing transformers are being replaced by Ring Main Unit (RMU) in a phased manner, the respondents shall consider the possibility to convert the present transformer into Ring Main Unit (RMU) by taking suitable decision. It is made it clear that the conversion suggested by this Court should not be considered as a positive direction enabling, the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, in future. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.