Allowed

G. Gunasekaran, v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC22 Apr 2013WP(MD)/2750/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an order refusing an electricity connection application. The court held that the rejection was unjustified given a joint compromise memo assigning the property to the petitioner, despite pending civil litigation. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.06.2011 quashed; matter remitted for fresh consideration within 3 weeks based on joint compromise memo; liberty granted to re-submit application.

G. Gunasekaran, Vs the Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.04.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.2750 of 2013

¶6

G.Gunasekaran : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvanaikovil, Trichy.

¶9

2.R.Pankajam : Respondents [R-2 impleaded as per order dated 22.04.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013]

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings in letter No.Vu.Me.Va/E.Ko/Thi.Kovil/So/Kattu/A.No.2011, dated 03.06.2011 on the file of the respondent herein and quash the same consequently directing the respondent to provide the Electricity Connection in D.No.2, Bharathi Street, Thiruvanaikovil, Trichy.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illancheziah For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha Standing Counsel For Respondent 2 : Mr.M.Siddharthan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

There is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the second respondent before the learned District Munsif, Trichy, in O.S.No.18 of 1997, for the purpose of partition and other incidental relief.

¶14

During the currency of the said suit, the parties have entered into a joint compromise making it clear that such agreement would be subject to the result of the pending Civil Suit. As per the said agreement, the petitioner was given the property bearing Door Nos.2D, 2E and 2F. The petitioner, on the basis of the said joint compromise memo, made an application before the first respondent requesting to give electricity connection. The said request was negatived on the ground of pendency of Civil Suits in O.S.Nos.614 of 1998 and 419 of 1997. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶16

¶17

The parties have produced a joint memo of compromise filed in I.A.No.35 of 1997 in O.S.No.18 of 1997, dated 21.04.1997, indicating that without prejudice to the final outcome of the said suit, agreement was reached for maintenance of the property. As per the said agreement, the properties bearing Door Nos.2D, 2E and 2F were given to the petitioner.

¶18

The joint compromise memo clearly gives an indication that the petitioner was given the properties bearing Door Nos.2D, 2E and 2F. Since the above said properties were given to the petitioner, as per the joint memo of compromise, the question of returning the application for electricity connection does not arise. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, proceeded on the basis that the Civil Suits are pending, and as such, electricity connection cannot be granted. Since the parties have entered into an agreement and produced the same before the District Munsif Court, Trichy, the first respondent was not justified in passing such an order.

¶19

In the result, the impugned order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the first respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

¶20

The petitioner is given liberty to re-submit the application before the first respondent and in the event of re-submitting the application, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the first respondent, in the light of the joint compromise memo filed in I.A.No.35 of 1997 in O.S.No.18 of 1997, dated 21.04.1997, before the learned District Munsif, Trichy. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of application from the petitioner. It is made clear that as pointed out in the memo of compromise, this arrangement will be subject to the result of the Civil Suits pending between the parties before the learned District Munsif, Trichy.

¶21

The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvanaikovil, Trichy.

¶26

+1 CC to Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, Advocate (SR.NO.22924) +1 CC to Mr.V.Ilanchezhian, Advocate (SR.NO.23023) +1 CC to Mr.M.Siddharthan, Advocate (SR.No.22935)

¶27

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.2750 of 2013 22.04.2013

¶28

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

NSV/6.6.13/2P/5C

G. Gunasekaran, v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Gunasekaran, v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Arul Vs the District Collector

Pandi, Vs the District Collector

M. Selvaprasanth, Vs the General Manager

Godwin, Vs the Branch Manager

M. Mahaboob Ali, Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

S.R.S. Dhanabalan, Vs the Chief General Manager