Dismissed

M.Venkatachalam, v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC1 Dec 2015WP/28433/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a TANGEDCO notice regarding electricity service connection via writ under Article 226. The court rejected the prayer to quash the proceedings as no enquiry was held previously. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to produce documents proving lawful possession within three weeks and appointed a further hearing thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari refused; liberty granted to produce documents within three weeks; status quo maintained pending reasoned order.

M.Venkatachalam, Vs the Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 01.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.28433 of 2013

and

M.P.No.1 of 2013

M.Venkatachalam

... Petitioner

The Assistant Enginneer (O & M) Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Ariyalur Town – 621 704 Ariyalur District

¶12

P.Elangovan ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in Ka.No.U.Po/E&Ka/Na/Ar/ Ko.Va.No.A.No.287 2013-2014 dated 04.10.2013 relating to Electricity Service Connection in S.C.No.315-018-392 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunaraj for R1 Mr.S.Vijayakumar for R2

¶16

Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the communication issued by the 1^st respondent dated 04.10.2013. In fact, the communication cannot be a impugned order as it is only notice issued to the petitioner to produce document to show that he is in lawful possession of the premises in question. In fact the impugned communication is a reply sent to the petitioner's advocate Thiru.R.Selvaraj. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to quash the impugned proceedings but to respond to the same.

¶19

Though elaborate submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent with regard to the dispute between themselves, this Court is not inclined to go into all these aspects, since the writ petition itself has been filed only when the impugned communication has been received by the petitioner. The counter filed by the 1^st respondent does not disclose that there was any enquiry conducted therein prior to the issuance of the impugned letter or thereafter. However, the 1^st respondent being the licensee is entitled to consider whether the petitioner is in lawful possession of the premises or not and for which purpose the petitioner is bound to produce all documents. In any event, the question of quashing the impugned proceedings does not arise. However, while rejecting the prayer sought for, liberty is granted to the petitioner to appear before the 1^st respondent and produce all documents in support of his claim about the property in question and this direction shall be complied with by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent, after notice to the petitioner, 2^nd respondent and any other person, who are likely to be affected, hear the parties and pass reasoned order within a period of three weeks thereafter. Till then the status quo prevailing as on date shall be maintained. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

ssd

¶23

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

¶24

To The Assistant Enginneer (O & M) Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Ariyalur Town – 621 704 Ariyalur District

¶25

+1cc to Mr.S.Kamadevan, Advocate, S.R.No.65460
+1cc to Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.65413
+ 1 cc to Mr.P.Gunaraj, Advocate sr 65455 (12/1/16)
W.P.No.28433 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
RSK(CO)
CA(11/12/2015)

¶26

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

M.Venkatachalam, v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkatachalam, 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

REKHA(38) Vs the Special Relief Commissione

M/s. Adarsh Estates Private Vs The Special Tahsildar (L.a.)

A.K.Anbazhagan Vs The Secretary to Government

India Airports Kamgar Union Vs The Airports Authority of

M.K.Mallikeswaran, Vs The Registrar of Co-operative

Manakular Motors Vs Asst. P.F. Commissioner(Comp)