Disposed

M. Subbiah, v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC18 Apr 2013WP(MD)/4184/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to restore power to a closed, dilapidated temple and accept arrears. The court granted liberty to approach for re-connection if the building is repaired with a stability certificate.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach respondents for re-connection if temple is opened with a stability certificate from a qualified engineer.

M. Subbiah, Vs the Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.4184 of 2013

M.Subbiah

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶12

TNEB, Alangulam (Post), Tamil Nadu Cements (via), Virudhuangar-District. : Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to receive arrears of EB charges and to restore EB Connection No.297-005-1079 and also to receive the advance amount towards future EB Charges according to Section 16 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murugan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.G.Kasinathadurai

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to receive the arrears of electricity charges and to restore electricity connection earlier given to the temple, by name Kaliamman Temple, Kakkivadanpatti Village, Sivakasi Taluk.

¶18

2.According to the petitioner, the Electricity Board has given electricity connection to the temple and the president of the temple has been paying the electricity charges. Subsequently, the Electricity Board disconnected the power supply. The petitioner now wanted the Electricity Board to accept the arrears and to give re-connection.

¶19

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

¶20

3.The learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, on instruction, submitted that the Meter was kept inside the temple and as such, the officials were not in a position

¶21

¶22

to take meter reading. The learned Standing counsel further contended that the temple was in a dilapidated condition an as such the Electricity Board was compelled to disconnect the power supply. The temple is now under lock and key and as such there is no question of giving re-connection.

¶23

4.There is no dispute that the temple has already been closed. The said factual position is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The building is stated to be in a dilapidated condition.

¶24

5.The petitioner is given liberty to approach the respondents for re-connection, in case the temple is opened. Since the second respondent has taken a specific contention that the building is in a dilapidated condition, necessarily the application for re-connection should be accompanied by a stability certificate issued by a qualified Engineer.

¶25

6.The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs.

sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar District.

¶32

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB, Alangulam (Post), Tamil Nadu Cements (via), Virudhuangar-District.

¶33

+1CC to Mr.R.Murugan, Advocate SR.No.22072

¶34

¶35

na/03/05/2013/p2/4c

¶36

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4184 of 2013 Dated:18.04.2013

¶37

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

M. Subbiah, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Subbiah, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Soundaravalli Vs the District Collector

M/S. Vasantham Catering, Vs the Senior Divisional

M. Sappani @ Ramasami Servai, Vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply and

P.Karthick, Vs the Director of Fisheries

Packiam, Vs the District Collector

K. Sibi Chakkaravarthy, Vs the Managing Director