JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, Directing the 1 to 5 Respondents forbearing the 6th Respondent from erection of windmills comprised in Survey No. 432 situated at Monganallampalayam, Erachapadipost, Dharapuram via Thiruppur District.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to forbear the 6threspondent from erecting any wind turbine in the subject property. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property situated at Survey Nos.433/2 and 430/1 at Kollupadyan Kadu, Vettukattam Thotam, Monganallampalayam, Erachapadi Post, Dharapuram Via, Thiruppur District. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 6th respondent, through the 7th respondent Contractor was attempting to erect a wind turbine in Survey No.432 within a distance of 170 meters from the property belonging to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the same is in violation of the Guidelines issued by the Government of India in F.No.66/183/2016-WE, dated 22.10.2016. The petitioner particularly placed reliance on Clause V(v) of the Guidelines, and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: V. Micrositing v. Developer(s) shall not site wind turbines within 500 m of any dwelling for the mitigation of noise. 4. The petitioner made a representation in this regard to the official respondents, and since no action was taken, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.1201 of 2020, and this Court, by an order dated 05.03.2020, disposed of the writ petition by directing the 4th respondent to consider the representation and take a decision. 5. It is stated that the 5th respondent called the petitioner for an enquiry, and it was informed that some attempts could be made to compromise the dispute. However, the parties did not arrive at any compromise. Therefore, the petitioner gave yet another representation to forbear the 6th respondent from proceeding further to erect the wind turbine. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, seeking appropriate directions. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. They have taken a stand to the effect that the 6th respondent had submitted a proposal for a location to erect the wind turbine, and this proposal was considered in line with the board proceedings dated 09.11.2018. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. They have taken a stand to the effect that the 6th respondent had submitted a proposal for a location to erect the wind turbine, and this proposal was considered in line with the board proceedings dated 09.11.2018. The TANGEDCO found that the location was in compliance with the board proceedings. The approval was granted by proceedings dated 08.01.2020, subject to certain conditions. A specific stand has been taken in the counter affidavit to the effect that the guidelines of the Central Government regarding micrositing is based on an optimised output and is not a strictly mandated minimum distance. In other words, the guidelines under micrositing are only to secure optimised output. 7. The 6th and 7th respondents have also filed counter affidavits and have taken a stand that the guidelines of the Central Government do not have the force of law, and it is the board proceedings of the TANGEDCO which has a statutory force, and according to these respondents, the TANGEDCO was satisfied with the compliance of the board proceedings and approval was also granted and therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the work undertaken by the 7th respondent to erect the wind turbine. 8. Heard Mr. Vijayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Abdul Kalam, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. A. Selvendran, learned Government Advocate for respondents 4 & 5 and Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for 6th respondent and Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 10. The main issue that arises for consideration in the present case is with regard to the binding nature of the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India [MNRE Guidelines]. Clause V(v) of the said Guidelines, which has been extracted supra, has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, admittedly, the wind turbine that is proposed to be installed is situated within 500 meters of the dwelling house of the petitioner. Clause V(v) of the said Guidelines, which has been extracted supra, has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, admittedly, the wind turbine that is proposed to be installed is situated within 500 meters of the dwelling house of the petitioner. Therefore, the question is as to whether non-compliance with the Guidelines is a bar for TANGEDCO to give its approval and for the 6th and 7th respondents to proceed further with the erection of the wind turbine. 11. The Guidelines issued by the MNRE is not based on any Statute, and it is more in the nature of instructions that will guide in erecting a wind turbine. 12. It is a well-settled law that for any executive instruction to have the force of law, it must be shown that the same was issued under a statute or the Constitution. In the absence of the same, such guidelines or executive instructions will not have the force of law. If there is any violation or breach of such guidelines, it does not give a cause of action for anyone to enforce those guidelines. 13. In the present case, the guiding factor will be the Micrositing Norms issued by TANGEDCO. The TANGEDCO is the nodal agency for the development of wind power in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is a prerequisite that necessary approval must be obtained from TANGEDCO after selecting a location before proceeding further with the erection of wind turbines. The TANGEDCO is guided by the board proceedings dated 09.11.2018, and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: Proceedings: As per the B.P.(1) & (2) Cited, the wind developers have to maintain the following distance/spacing criteria. (a) The distance between the proposed WEG’S with adjacent wind mill, if any, formed in a row, should be atleast five times the diameter of the rotor. The row should be formed such that it is perpendicular to the predominant wind direction. The distance between subsequent rows should be atleast seven time the diameter of the rotor, so that performance of the WEG’S will not get affected if any manner. (b) The developer should own the land or lease to the extent of 1/2 D+ 5 m in all four directions. The distance between subsequent rows should be atleast seven time the diameter of the rotor, so that performance of the WEG’S will not get affected if any manner. (b) The developer should own the land or lease to the extent of 1/2 D+ 5 m in all four directions. (c) (Height of the Tower + 1/2 D+ 5m) if the wind mills are proposed to be erected nearer to the National Highway Roads and Railway Tracks in addition to locations nearer to a building, school, residential place etc. Further it is clarified that the “Tower Height + 1/2 D+5M”is only the minimum spacing required, as in the case of 5D and 7D spacing between wind mills but the minimum area of the land required to be owned or taken on lease by the private developer for all cases remains the same as 1/2 D+5M” in all four directions to avoid aerial trespass of the blades into the Neighbouring land”. Now due to enormous growth in the wind sector, there is a shortage of land in wind resource area. Further due to advancement in wind turbine technology, and the increase in height of the tower, the above spacing/distance criteria needs to be reviewed to better utilize the available wind resource in a limited availability of land. Further the MNRE has also come out with “Guidelines for development of onshore wind power dt. 23.10.2016 in which relaxing of micrositing is being envisaged. In addition to the above, there is an imperative need for repowering of WEGs erected some 20 years before since they have served their life time and also to better harvest the wind potential. The MNRE has also come out with Repowering policy vide Notification No.66/175/2015-WE, dt. 05.08.2016. Hence considering the above aspects, the 5Dx7D micrositing spacing criteria existing vide (a) in para 1 cited above is hereby revised as detailed below: (a)(i) For the new projects of wind farm/park model under IDC or 10(1) cases, as per micrositing the distance of 2Dx3D, 3Dx5D, 4Dx6D, 5Dx7D etc which ever may be adopted for each WEG within their wind farm/park area. (a)(ii) If the proposed WEG is nearer to the existing other developer WEG, 5Dx7D concept is to be adopted to avoid unnecessary dispute, however with the consent of adjacent WEG owner 5Dx7D norms may be relaxed. (a)(ii) If the proposed WEG is nearer to the existing other developer WEG, 5Dx7D concept is to be adopted to avoid unnecessary dispute, however with the consent of adjacent WEG owner 5Dx7D norms may be relaxed. (a)(iii) For re-powering cases 3Dx5D may be cluster area, but in the outer, the 5Dx7D concept may be adopted with respect to the other developer WEG. However, with the consent of adjacent WEG ower 5Dx7D norms may be relaxed. (a)(iv) If the proposed new/re-powering WEG is nearer to the already registered/proposed locations, 5D/7D criteria has been relaxes to 3Dx5D to accommodate optimum WEG location to achieve the objective of the MNRE Guidelines. The other land requirement and aerial clearance as mentioned in (b) &(c) in para (1) above remains same. 14. The above-extracted board proceedings has the force of law. It can be seen from the above-extracted board proceedings that the TANGEDCO has recognised the fact that there is a shortage of land for the development of renewable energy projects, and hence, it has consciously taken a decision to review the spacing/distance criteria for better utilisation of the available wind resource within the limited available land. Therefore, TANGEDCO has relaxed the Microtising restrictions, thereby encourages wind energy generators. TANGEDCO has also taken into consideration the MNRE Guidelines and thereafter prescribed the norms through the board proceedings. 15. There is yet another reason why the issuance of board proceedings by TANGEDCO must be held to have a statutory force. Rule 45(7) of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 specifically empowers TANGEDCO to issue location clearance and approval to set up a wind turbine generator on any land. As per the board proceedings, the prescribed distance to be maintained by a wind turbine generator is 195 meters in all directions. The TANGEDCO officials conducted an inspection of the area and, on being satisfied that the micrositing requirements were fulfilled, granted clearance to the 6th respondent to proceed further to erect the wind turbine, through proceedings dated 08.01.2020, subject to conditions. 16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the 6th respondent has complied with the requirements of the applicable laws and regulations and hence, the 7th respondent, who is the contractor, is entitled to proceed further to set up the wind turbine generator in the subject property. 16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the 6th respondent has complied with the requirements of the applicable laws and regulations and hence, the 7th respondent, who is the contractor, is entitled to proceed further to set up the wind turbine generator in the subject property. This Court holds that the MNRE Guidelines lack statutory backing and, therefore, it is not enforceable. Hence, the reliance placed upon by the petitioner on these Guidelines is unsustainable. 17. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.