Judgment :- The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to forbear the respondents from installing the transformer in front of the petitioner shop at Door No.232, Theni Main Road, Madurai-10 and also to consider the representations dated 11.02.2012 and 27.02.2012 of the petitioner on merits. 2. The petitioner is doing oil business in Door NO.3, Theni Main Road, in the name and style of M/s.Prabhu Oil Store for more than 25 years after obtaining proper license from the Commercial Tax Department. The National Highways Authority extending the road on the both sides. The big trees and other posts were removed and the respondents 1 to 3 are taking steps to install the transformer in front of the petitioner's shop. The ingress and egress of the customers of the petitioner and general public are prevented from being used the pedestrian area. 3. The petitioner requested the respondents to install the transformer in the vacant space belonging to the Madurai Corporation which is available 100 metres away from the petitioner's shop. The petitioner made a representation on 11.02.2012 to the respondents 1 to 3 not to install the transformer in front of the shop. The respondents did not pass any orders on the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief sought for. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed the counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner. Due to the widening of the highways road, the electric poles and transformers are shifted. The National Highways Department has already paid the shifting charges. The proposed shifting electric pole and transformer is at the shoulder of public road. The existing transformer is 31 feet away from the petitioner's shop. Now the proposed place is 20 feet away from the petitioner's shop. The petitioner will not be affected by shifting the transformer. The alternative place suggested by the petitioner is not suitable as Kerosene bunk is situated in the said place. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Srimathy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Murali, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.4. 6. Admittedly, the existing transformer is situated 31 feet away from the petitioner's shop. Now the proposed place is 20 feet away from the petitioner's shop. 5. Heard Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Srimathy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Murali, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.4. 6. Admittedly, the existing transformer is situated 31 feet away from the petitioner's shop. Now the proposed place is 20 feet away from the petitioner's shop. The transformer is being installed on the Highways land. Except this pole all other electric poles were shifted based on the proposed plan. 7. In view of the above facts, the proposed transformer is 20 feet away from the petitioner's shop and kerosene bunk is situated in the place suggested by the petitioner and the land is belonging to the Highways Department and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents for redressal of his grievance. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.