JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, owner of the land and building, bearing Door No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, not to erect pillars or posts to install the transformer or any other instruments, in front of the said house. He has also sought for a direction to remove the unused pillars already erected by the respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, in the year 2002, the local police authorities put up a Police Booth in front of the abovesaid premises. Chennai Corporation has put up a drainage air pipe in-front of the abovesaid premises in the year 2003. Telephone authorities have erected a junction box in 2004. According to the petitioner, a street light post was also erected in the year 2006. While that be so, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board have erected two cement pillars to put up a transformer, blocking the other remaining portion. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move the Civil Court, by filing a Suit in O.S.No.216 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a permanent injunction restraining (1)The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K. Nagar, Chennai. (2)The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K. Nagar, Chennai. (3)The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property, by erecting any pole, transformer Unit, equipment, machinery and other accessories in-front of the petitioner's house, bearing Door No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai. The said Suit was dismissed on 31.03.2010. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, Mr. R.A. Srinivasan, one of the plaintiffs and another filed A.S.No.160 of 2010, on the file of the Learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Upon considering the rival submissions and material on record, the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, allowed the Appeal, by order dated 15.11.2012, setting aside the order of the trial Court in O.S.No.216 of 2009 and consequently, decreed the suit, as prayed for. 4. On the strength of the abovesaid decree and reiterating the averments made in the supporting affidavit, Mr. 4. On the strength of the abovesaid decree and reiterating the averments made in the supporting affidavit, Mr. V.T. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, ignoring the Judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the respondents are trying to erect another set of pillars, in the petitioner's premises and hence, the said action is contrary to the verdict of the Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for a Mandamus. Photographs are also produced by the petitioner. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, respondent No.2, in his counter affidavit has denied the contentions that the two pillars for installing, a transformer, by the respondents, are not blocking either the entrance or ingress and egress to the petitioner's property. According to him, the main entrance to the property is facing K.K. Road. He has also submitted that the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.160 of 2010 has been taken note of. It is also the contention of the Superintending Engineer, Chennai, that the respondents have decided to erect a highly sophisticated small sleek and short height RMU Unit, with a transformer, at the road margin, which is 25 feet away from the petitioner's site, replacing the existing incomplete outdoor structure in the road margin. According to the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, respondent No.2, TANGEDCO has sanctioned the RMU Unit at the cost of about Rs.22 lakhs. The RMU Unit with Distribution Transformer erection work was started on 11.11.2013, considering the need of the entire local public to solve the perennial low voltage problem. At this juncture, on 12.11.2013, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents. Based on the objection of the consumer, once again the site was inspected and the petitioner was informed to the effect that the proposed location for erecting RMU with Distribution Transformer is not located at the entrance of the petitioner's premises nor it would affect the ingress and egress to the petitioner's property. According to respondent No.2, the proposed site would not cause any disturbance to the occupants of the K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar residents and in no way endanger the safety of the public, on the following grounds: "7(a) The proposed location for erecting the RMU is 25 feet far away from the petitioner's building bearing No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai-600 078. (b) The storm water drainage that exist between the No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar, is 20 feet and 5 feet from the proposed RMU from South to North direction. (c) Police Booth that exist 20 feet away from the No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar residential building, adjacent to the storm water drainage and 23 feet away from the proposed RMU location from East to West direction. (d) I further state that the Down North from the corporation platform at the distance of 5 feet almost in the road margin is the proposed location for RMU Unit with Transformer Unit proposed to be installed and hence, the allegation that we are trying to install the transformer blocking the ingress and egress of the petitioner's property is not true and correct. (e) The proposed location is not in the main entrance of the No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar as the said location is far away about 25 feet from the above said residential building. (f) The rough sketch with all the details about the No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai-78 with the proposed location for the erection of the RMU Unit will speak about the real case. (g) The photographs taken about the nature of the No.86, K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar and the proposed wite for the installation of the RMU Unit will taken 29.11.2013 will prove that the writ petitioner had furnished false and incorrect particulars so as to mislead this Hon'ble Court. (h) The proposed RMU along with transformer will cater the needs of the people who are all living in the MGR Nagar." For the abovesaid reasons, the respondents have further submitted that the petitioner has no right to object, to the installation of RMU Unit. 6. Suit in O.S.No.216 of 2009 has been filed for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, etc., from in any manner, interfering with the possession or erecting transformer unit, equipment, machinery and other accessories in front of the petitioner's premises, by the plaintiff namely, R.A. Srinivasan. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed an Appeal in A.S.No.160 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed an Appeal in A.S.No.160 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The said Appeal has been allowed by observing that if the transformer has to be erected in front of the suit property, it would endanger human life and affect the day to day affairs, and it would also affect the free usage of the suit property, in order to reach the main road, as pointed out by the appellants. 7. The reasons stated by the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K. Road, MGR Nagar, Chennai, as to how the location of the proposed site would not cause any disturbance to the occupants of the K.K. Road, M.G.R. Nagar residents, and as to how it would not endanger the safety, have not been disputed by the Writ Petitioner. All that is intended to be protected, by the learned IV Additional Judge in A.S.No.160 of 2010, dated 15.11.2012, is the ingress and egress to the suit property, and that it should not cause any disturbance, in reaching the main road. The stand of the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.K. Road, MGR Nagar, Chennai, is that the distance between the proposed RMU Unit and the petitioner's building is 25 feet. Certainly, it would not cause any serious problem. Photographs produced by the respondents are treated as part and parcel of the record. There is a clear indication that it is far away from the petitioner's building. The petitioner can protect his property, only to the extent of usage of the place to have ingress and egress. The Injunction Order granted by the Civil Court can be enforced only to that extent and the respondents cannot be permanently restrained not to put up any transformer or install any electrical appliances, benefiting the general public. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any Mandamus. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.