Dismissed

Manimuthu, v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC22 Dec 2014WP(MD)/20810/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a mandatory order for electricity connection and shifting of service connection. The Court held that disputed factual issues regarding construction permission cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings. The petitioner was directed to approach competent authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed leaving parties to bear own costs; petitioner directed to approach competent authority for fresh application.

Manimuthu, Vs the Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:22.12.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20810 of 2014

¶7

Manimuthu

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The Assistant Engineer,

¶10

(Operation & Maintenance),

¶11

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶12

TANGEDCO, Pookollai,

¶13

Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶14

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶15

(Operation & Maintenance),

¶16

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶17

3.The Superintendent Engineer,

¶18

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶19

Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give service connection to the Door No.1/183/1 and shifting the existing service connection to the Door No.1/183 based on the Petitioner's application, dated 09.09.2012.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Murugesan For Respondents : M/s.SMS.Johny Basha

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

¶24

According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the second Respondent to provide service connection to Door No.1/183/1 and shifting the existing service connection to Door No.1/183 based on his application, dated 09.09.2012.

¶25

It is the stand of the Petitioner that while demolishing the old house, meter box and main switch system was separated and he paid proper consumption charges till date and in fact, in his old house, there is a service connection provided by the first Respondent in service connection No.66 stands in his name. Also that he applied for new https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connection for the new house in Door No.1/183/1 in his son's name on 09.09.2012. It is also represented on behalf of the Petitioner that he

¶26

¶27

submitted an application in regard to the shifting of earlier service connection No.66 to Door No.1/183.

¶28

At this stage, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 contents that the Respondents have not received any application, dated 09.09.2012, in the name of Ashok from the Petitioner and in fact, the Petitioner had constructed a new house without obtaining proper building permission from the Panchayat concerned. However, this fact is not accepted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶29

In view of the fact that the Petitioner is purported to have projected an application on 09.09.2012 in the name of his son Ashok addressed to the first Respondent seeking new connection to the new house in Door No.1/183/1 and the shifting of existing service connection to Door No.1/183 and the same being denied/disputed on the side of the Respondents in an emphatic term, at this stage, this Court is of the considered view that in a summary proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the disputed issue/question, cannot be investigated by the Writ Court and the only remedy open to the Petitioner is to approach the competent Authorities in the subject matter in issue in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition sans merits.

¶30

In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition by this Court will not preclude the Petitioner to prefer a fresh application, seeking service connection to Door No.1/183/1 and shifting the existing service connection to Door No.1/183 in the manner known to law and in accordance with law before the concerned Authorities and to seek appropriate relief as he deems fit and proper.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (Per Admn)

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Assistant Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, Pookollai, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶37

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶38

(Operation & Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶39

3.The Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶40

+1cc to MR.D.R.MURUGESAN, ADVOCATE IN SR : 68429

¶41

¶42

SR : 07.01.2015 : 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.20810 of 2014

¶44

22.12.2014

Manimuthu, v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimuthu, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Balasundarambal, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arayar Srinivasan, Vs the Secretary

V.Thangavelu, Vs the District Collector

Kathiresan, Vs the Supdt.of Police

K.R.Vellaisamy, Vs the Executive Engineer

A.Karuppuchami Vs the Superintendent of Police