Partly allowed

M. Arumugam v. the Superintendnet of

Madras HC9 Sept 2014WP(MD)/11997/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a permanent electricity connection. The Court held that the connection could not be granted due to safety concerns regarding high tension lines and directed the petitioner to reduce the building height to permissible limits before reapplying.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to reduce building height to permissible limits and then approach the Board for inspection and grant of connection.

M. Arumugam Vs the Superintendnet of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.09.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.(MD) No.11997 of 2014

¶5

M.Arumugam ..Petitioner

¶6

-vs-

¶7

1.The Superintendent Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Service & Distribution) Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar

¶8

2.The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Chathirapatti Rajapalayam Taluk Virudhunagar District

¶9

3.The Divisional Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Ponnagaram Rajapalayam Taluk Virudhunagar District

¶10

4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer

¶11

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

¶12

Ponnagaram, Rajapalayam Taluk Virudhunagar District ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give permanent electricity connection to the petitioner's house at 11/339C, 1B 6^th Cross Street, V.O.C., Nagar, Samusigapuram Panchayat, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District, within a time stipulated.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.G.Kasinathadurai for T.N.E.B.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Electricity Board to give permanent electricity service connection to his house situated at 11/339C, 1B 6^th Cross Street, V.O.C., Nagar, Samusigapuram Panchayat, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District, within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

According to the petitioner, he has constructed a house during https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2011, by availing housing loan from HDFC Bank and when he approached the respondent Electricity Board for grant of electricity service connection, they refused to grant service connection to the petitioner's house

¶20

¶21

stating that there is high tension electric line crossing the petitioner's house and the hight of the building is less than 10 feet from the high tension electric line. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board produced a copy of the inspection report. Since the high tension electric line is already crossing, the petitioner ought to have constructed his house within the permissible limit and after completion of construction, he could not make such a request, because the high tension electric line will endanger the life of the petitioner and his family members and therefore he should maintain sufficient safeguard. The objection raised by the respondent Electricity Board is acceptable.

¶22

In the light of the above, the petitioner is directed to reduce the hight of the building within the permissible limit and thereafter approach the respondent Board for grant of service connection. On such compliance, the respondent Electricity Board shall conduct an inspection and if they satisfied that the hight of the building is reduced within the permissible limit and there will not be any danger to anybody by the high tension electric line, they shall grant electricity service connection to the petitioner's house.

¶23

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

To:

¶29

1.The Superintendent Engineer,

¶30

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶31

(Service & Distribution),

¶32

Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶33

2.The Assistant Engineer,

¶34

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chathirapatti, Rajapalayam Taluk,

¶35

Virudhunagar District.

¶36

3.The Divisional Engineer,

¶37

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶38

Ponnagaram, Rajapalayam Taluk,

¶39

Virudhunagar District.

¶40

4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

¶41

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶42

Ponnagaram, Rajapalayam Taluk,

¶43

Virudhunagar District.

¶44

+1CC to M/s.K.Sudalaiyandi, Advocate in SR.51452

¶45

+1CC to M/s.G.Kasinathadurai, Advocate in SR.51056

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.11997 of 2014 09.09.2014

¶47

krk

¶48

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PBK 14/10/2014 ::2P-7C:

M. Arumugam v. the Superintendnet of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Arumugam v. the Superintendnet of

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

S. Surya Moorthy Vs the Corporation Commissioner

Nizar Mohamed Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Kanagaraj Samuvel Vs the District Registrar

S.Kavitha Vs State Represented by

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, Vs the District Collector

Sri Joythi Petro Product Vs the Assistant Commissioner