JUDGMENT : M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Petitioner has focused the present Writ Petitioner praying for an order from this Court in directing the Respondents to inaugurate the new power station situated at Samayanallur, Madurai District in the surplus vacant land available in the premises of the Fourth Respondent without cutting the trees standing in the portion of the premises of the Fourth Respondent. 2. Heard both sides. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is a public spirited person and that the act of the Fourth Respondent/Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Samayanallur Division, Madurai, in cutting the trees situated in Samayanallur Power House Complex would affect the 'Ecological Balance'. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that in Samayanallur, Village power house was inaugurated several years back and earlier, Samayanallur was occupied by number of trees and most of the trees were cut and removed for various schemes under the guise of development. Furthermore, for Inaugurating the Power House itself, most of the trees were removed. 5. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that there are remaining 600 various trees viz., Neem Trees-55, Tamarind Trees-49, Mango Trees-31, Jamum Trees-12, Coconut Trees-4, Panneer Tree-5, Vengayam Tree-1, Vaagai Trees-2, Manila Tamarind Trees-11, Ilavam Panju Trees-3, Teak Trees(big size)-1 (small size)-44, Palmyra Trees -35, and Vavarakachi Tree-1 and other trees standing in the premises of Samayanallur Power House Station. Also, it is the plea of the Petitioner that the vacant land to an extent of nearly 25 acres is very well available to the Electricity Board just in the premises and in that area no tree is available. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that during the year 2015, the Third and Fourth Respondents took steps to inaugurate additional power station in the premises and that the Petitioner had objected to the cutting of trees and submitted a detailed representation. Furthermore, when the Petitioner made a request before the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to provide information as to the cutting of trees, he was informed that they had not finalized the plan and by furnishing the information in June 2016, the Fourth Respondent/Executive Engineer, TNEB, Samayanallur Division, Madurai, had informed him that they had sought for permission in respect of the cutting of trees. 7. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner on 27.03.2027, had submitted a detailed representation before the First Respondent objecting to the cut and removal of the trees. A Reply dated 28.05.2017 from the third Respondent was issued to the representation of the Petitioner stating that the First Respondent provided permission for cutting and removal of the trees with a view to inaugurate Sub Station in the premises of existing Samayanallur Sub Station. In this regard, the Respondent comes with a plea that the mechanical act of the Respondents in cutting and removing the trees without considering the vacant land of 25 acres is a lethargic and an illegal one. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the trees are very much essential to safeguard the nature and list out the 20 most important benefits of trees, which runs as under:- "(a) Excess carbon dioxide (Co2) caused by many factors is a building up in our atmosphere and contributing to climate change. Trees absorb Co2, removing and storing the carbon while releasing the oxygen back into the air. In one year, an acre of mature trees absorbs the amount of Co2 produced when you drive your car 26,000 miles. (b) Trees absorb odors and pollutant gasses (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and ozone) and filter particulates out of the air by trapping them on their leaves and bark. (c) in one year an acre of mature trees can provide enough oxygen for 18 people. (d) Average temperatures in Los Angeles have risen 6'F in the last 50 years as tree coverage has declined and the number of heat-absorbing roads and buildings has increased. Trees cool the city by up to 10'F, by shading our homes and streets, breaking up urban “heat islands” and releasing water vapor into the air through their leaves. (e) Three trees placed strategically around a single-family home can cut summer air conditioning needs by up to 50 percent. By reducing the energy demand for cooling our houses, we reduce carbon dioxide and other pollution emissions from power plants. (f) Shade from trees slows water evaporation from thirsty lawns. Most hewly planted trees need only fifteen gallons of water a week. As trees transpire, they increase atmospheric moisture. By reducing the energy demand for cooling our houses, we reduce carbon dioxide and other pollution emissions from power plants. (f) Shade from trees slows water evaporation from thirsty lawns. Most hewly planted trees need only fifteen gallons of water a week. As trees transpire, they increase atmospheric moisture. (g) Trees reduce runoff by breaking rainfall thus allowing the water to flow down the trunk and into the earth below the tree. This prevents storm water from carrying pollutants to the ocean. When mulched, trees act like a sponge that filters this water naturally and uses it to recharge groundwater supplies. (h) On hillsides or stream slopes, trees slow runoff and hold soil in place. (i) Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. Trees reduce UV-B exposure by about 50 percent, thus providing protection to children on school campuses and playgrounds-where children spend hours outdoors. (j) An apple tree can yield up to 15-20 bushels of fruit per year and can be planted on the tiniest urban lot. Aside from fruit for humans, trees provide food for birds and wildlife. (k) Studies have shown that patients with views of trees out their windows heal faster and with less complications. Children with ADHD show fewer symptoms when they have access to nature. Exposure to trees and nature aids concentration by reducing mental fatigue. (l) Neighborhoods and homes that are barren have shown to have a greater incidence of violence in and out of the home than their greener counterparts. Trees and landscaping help to reduce the level of fear. (m) Is it winter, spring, summer or fall? Look at the trees. (n) Fruit harvested from community orchards can be sold, thus providing income. Small business opportunities in green waste management and landscaping arise when cities value mulching and its water-saving qualities. Vocational training for youth interested in green jobs is also a great way to develop economic opportunities from trees. (o) Whether as houses for children or creative and spiritual inspiration for adults, trees have provided the space for human retreat throughout the ages. (p) Tree plantings provide an opportunity for community involvement and empowerment that improves the quality of life in our neighborhoods. All cultures, ages, and genders have an important role to play at a tree planting or tree care event. (p) Tree plantings provide an opportunity for community involvement and empowerment that improves the quality of life in our neighborhoods. All cultures, ages, and genders have an important role to play at a tree planting or tree care event. (q) Trees as landmarks can give a neighborhood a new identity and encourage civic pride. (r) Trees can mask concrete walls or parking lots, and unsightly views. They muffle sound from nearby streets and freeways, and create an eye- soothing canopy of green. Trees absorb dust and wind and reduce glare." 9. The core submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that when implementing a Development Scheme, the authorities may analyse the possibilities of vacant site available and in this case, although, surplus land is available in the same premises, it is not known why the Third and Fourth Respondents had asked for permission to cut the trees and the First and Second Respondents also gave permission to cut the trees. There is surplus land available in the same premises of the Fourth Respondent measuring to an extent of more than 25 acres, where tress are not available. As a matter of fact, the Respondents have purposely decided to cut the trees for the reasons best known to them. The First Respondent had granted permission to cut the trees. The Third and Fourth Respondents on account of the permission being granted are taking speedy steps to cut and remove the trees. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 10. In Response, the Learned Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submits that the establishment of a new 230/KVSS is very much essential, because of the reason that the existing establishment is inadequate to tackle the load demand and the voltage fluctuations. Also, it is projected on the side of the Third and Fourth Respondents that the areas in and around Madurai are being fed off Pasumalai 230/110 KVSS and Alagarkoil 230/KVSS and that the existing Pasumalai 230 KVSS had already reached the peak and Alagarkovil is on the verge of attaining the peak and therefore, the establishment of Samayanallur Sub Station is very much essential. 11. 11. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents contends that the proposed sub station would ease the load and will provide proper supply with proper voltage and that the proposed sub station is erected to meet the future load growth in and around Madurai area and also would facilitate operational flexibilities and alternate feeding arrangements for the existing sub stations so as to maintain uninterrupted power supply. 12. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 brings it to the notice of this Court that for establishing the proposed 230 KV/sub-station and power lines, 254 numbers of trees (Vembu-55, Tamarind Trees-49, Mango Trees-31, Naval Trees-12, Coconut Trees-4, Panner Trees-5, Pungai Tree-1, Vagai Trees-2, Kodai Trees-11, Elavampanju Trees-3, Big Teak Tree-1, Small Teak Trees-44, Palm Trees-35, Vavarakaichi Tree-1) in the campus which are more than 40 years old need to be removed. In fact, it is represented on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the Executive Engineer quarters situated there was also removed and the building was already demolished. Indeed, necessary orders were received from District Forest Officer and also from District Collector, Madurai for removing the afore stated trees. In fact, the competent authority had ascertained the value of the trees. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondent takes a stand that the entire land measuring 53.56 acres belongs to the Respondent TANGEDCO. Out of this, 10 Acres land (200x200 Meters) is required for establishment of 230 KV/Sub-station and remaining area is occupied by MPCL (IPP), Smayanallur sub-store, store-yard, old transformer erection building and yard, Division Office building, school building, Section Office building , Sub-Division Office, Civil Office, Revenue Branch Office, GCC Store Office and RCC pole-yard. 14. It is the plea of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 that RCC pole-yard is a manufacturing unit, wherein poles are manufactured for the entire southern region of Tamil Nadu, which are essentially required for effecting supply to the consumer and the General Construction Circle Store is handling major Electrical Equipments for erection of new Sub-Stations and erection towers for Transmission network covering the entire Southern Zone. Apart from that, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that for generating power through Independent Power Plant, Madurai Power Corporation Limited, the land has been allotted in the premises for period from 1999 to 2019 and as such, the land in question was allotted admeasuring 200x200 meters. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 adverts to the fact that the other sites like 110 KV line from Samayanallur sub-station and also MPCL 110 KV switch yard was also tried but the same was rejected, since the said area is a congested area and on safety aspect also the said place is not feasible. In reality, necessary approval was obtained from the District Forest Officer/Madurai for cutting the trees in order to establish 230 KVSS and the said approval was granted on a condition that 2540 trees ought to be planted in Vadipatti, Vikramangalam TNEB (TANGEDCO) campus with a view to compensate the felling of trees. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the required land (200x200 meters) is not available in the near by area and therefore the land already in possession of TANGEDCO was selected to establish 230 KV sub-station, mainly to fulfill the demand of consumers in and around Madurai city by demolishing of old damaged quarters and also trees available adjacent to the quarters. Only after analyzing all facts, the place in question has been selected and it is necessary to establish the sub- station in the place earmarked for the same. 17. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Fifth Respondent/Company is one of the three Independent Power Producers (IPP) in the State of Tamil Nadu, which is using liquid fuel as feedstock and that the Fifth Respondent signed a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 21.05.1998 with Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), a subsidiary company of TNEB Limited, for a period of 15 years. In fact, MPC is in commercial operation since 22.09.2001 and MPC had signed Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) and Fuel Transportation Agreement (FTA) with Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) for a period of 15 years for the supply of Heavy Fuel Oil like, Law Sullphur Heavy Stock (LSHS)/Low Sullphur Furnace Oil (LSFO). 18. In fact, MPC is in commercial operation since 22.09.2001 and MPC had signed Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) and Fuel Transportation Agreement (FTA) with Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) for a period of 15 years for the supply of Heavy Fuel Oil like, Law Sullphur Heavy Stock (LSHS)/Low Sullphur Furnace Oil (LSFO). 18. Added further, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Fifth Respondent points out that the project land belongs to Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) and the Fifth Respondent had taken 17.09 acres of land on lease in furtherance of Land Lease Agreement (LLA) dated 29.01.1999 for a period of 20 years and also the Fifth Respondent had entered into another lease agreement dated 04.10.2000 in respect of additional land to an extent of 2.3153 acres. As a matter of fact, the Fifth Respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the said land pursuance of the lease agreements duly entered into between it and the TANGEDCO. 19. In this connection, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Fifth Respondent submits that the lease rent is paid annually in advance and the Fifth Respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,75,13,468-00/- (One Crore Seventy Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) in respect of annual lease rent for the period from 10.02.2017 to 09.02.2018. In fact, the lease agreement is valid upto 2019. 20. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Fifth Respondent points out that the plant was utilized for the energy requirement of Madurai city and surrounding areas, since it is commercial operation and the completed capital cost of the plant is about Rs.427.76 Crores as per the capital cost fixation order given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) dated 29.12.2016. It is also represented on behalf of the Fifth Respondent that the Fifth Respondent had sent a letter in terms of the provision of the Power Purchase Agreement dated 15.03.2016 requesting TANGEDCO to take over the power plant as they did not envisages an extension of the PPA with the company as per their letter dated 18.04.2015. Further, on the basis of a letter dated 06.07.2016 received from the Superintending Engineer (LD & GO), Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTRANSCO), a subsidiary company of TNEB Limited, the Fifth Respondent had stopped the injection of power from the Plant to the Grid from 22.09.2016, on completion of the 15 years PPA term. 21. Further, on the basis of a letter dated 06.07.2016 received from the Superintending Engineer (LD & GO), Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTRANSCO), a subsidiary company of TNEB Limited, the Fifth Respondent had stopped the injection of power from the Plant to the Grid from 22.09.2016, on completion of the 15 years PPA term. 21. At this juncture, a mere perusal of the counter filed by the Fifth Respondent, at paragraph No.7, inter alia points out that the Company is maintaining around 10,000 trees inside the Power Plant premises to comply with the conditions stipulated by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and any construction of the proposed 230 KV sub-station would also warrant cutting of trees in the power plant premises. More over, it is the case of the Fifth Respondent that it had sent a Reply dated 21.10.2016 (for the letter dated 19.10.2016 received from Superintending Engineer (GCC)) stating that giving up any land by Madurai Power Corporation is not feasible etc. 22. In short, it is the plea of the Fifth Respondent that the company is trying its level best to identify a buyer which is expected to take time and furthermore, the company is not in commercial operation now and burdened with the cost of keeping the plant in an operable condition to demonstrate the same to a prospective buyer without an income stream. Also, that the process of dismantling the engines and auxiliaries and packing it ready for transportation would require a minimum period of about 9 months after identifying the buyer and a further period of 6 months to clear the site and hand over. 23. As a matter of fact, the Fifth Respondent is not a necessary party to the present Writ Petition. It transpires that in the present W.P.(MD)No.12882 of 2017, this Court, on 16.08.2017, had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land in question and to prepare a sketch of the property and indicate the vacant place and also directed to report as to whether there is sufficient space for construction of a Sub Station requiring about ten acres of land. Also, a direction was issued to the Learned Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land given on lease to the Fifth Respondent/Madurai Power Corporation Limited and to report as to whether the factory is still functioning. 24. Also, a direction was issued to the Learned Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land given on lease to the Fifth Respondent/Madurai Power Corporation Limited and to report as to whether the factory is still functioning. 24. The Learned Advocate Commissioner in the report, dated 18.09.2017 had stated that on 13.09.2017, she visited the property in issue that is the power station of the Fourth Respondent etc. To put is precisely, the Learned Advocate Commissioner at paragraph No.4 of the report had stated that she was informed by the Engineer of the Fourth Respondent that for the construction of the Sub Station, they required a place measuring 110 meters x 200 meters in perfect square and apart from the above said place earmarked, she had also measured the vacant spaces present in the aforesaid property of the Fourth Respondent. However, they are all very small in nature and consist of standing trees. 25. To put it succinctly, the Learned Advocate Commissioner in her report dated 18.09.2017, had clearly stated that the place earmarked by the Engineer of the Fourth Respondent measuring 110 meters x 200 meters in perfect square is the only place suitable for sub station and no other vacant place is available/suitable for construction of the sub station. Furthermore, the Learned Advocate Commissioner had measured the place situated on the Northern side of the earmarked portion, which according to the Petitioner can be used for construction of sub station and on measurement, the vacant space in the said place was not measuring 110 meters x 200 meters and also the same is not in square. Therefore, the Learned Advocate Commissioner had opined that the same could not be used for construction of power station. Besides these, the Learned Advocate Commissioner had mentioned in her report that the Fifth Respondent's factory is not running and the machineries installed in the said factory is huge in size and even for dismantling of the said machineries, it will take long time. 26. Insofar as the Fifth Respondent is concerned, it is not a necessary and proper party to the present Writ Petition, as opined by this Court. 26. Insofar as the Fifth Respondent is concerned, it is not a necessary and proper party to the present Writ Petition, as opined by this Court. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling manner and also this Court, taking note of the Learned Advocate Commissioner's report, dated 18.09.2017, wherein it was in a crystalline fashion mentioned that 'the place earmarked by the Engineer of the Fourth Respondent measuring 110 meters x 200 meters in perfect square is the only place suitable for sub station and no other vacant place is available/suitable for the construction of sub station', comes to a consequent conclusion that the relief sought for by the Petitioner seeking issuance of Mandamus in directing the Respondents to inaugurate the new power station situated at Samayanallur, Madurai District in the surplus vacant land available in the premises of the Fourth Respondent etc., cannot be acceded to. Viewed in that perspective and looking at from any angle, the present Writ Petition fails. 27. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.