Disposed

C.Veerappan, v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC13 Apr 2015WP/31906/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandatory direction for an additional 60 HP electricity connection to the petitioner's rice mill. The Court directed the petitioner to identify an unobjectionable site adjacent to his property for a new transformer and informed authorities that installation on the identified land was infeasible.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a representation indicating an unobjectionable site adjacent to his property within two weeks for the respondent to inspect and decide within three weeks.

C.Veerappan, Vs The Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 13.04.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No. 31906 of 2014

¶6

and M.P. No. 1 of 2014

¶7

C. Veerappan ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Superintending Engineer (O & M) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Mettur Circle, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District. 2. The Assistant Engineer (O & M) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) Tharamangalam-636502, Salem District. 3. P. Tamil Selvan 4. P. Jayagobi ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to provide 60 HP E.B. connection to the petitioner's industry in S.C. No.872 in Thuttampatti Distribution of Tharamangalam Section of 2^nd respondent based on the petitioner's application No.1350314330, dated 10.03.2014 forthwith to protect the petitioner's claim.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. M.R. Jothimanian For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Rameshuwar Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr. S. Raveekumar for R3.

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

By consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Ramesuwar, learned Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/R1 & R2.

¶13

The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide 60 HP EB connection to his rice mill in S.C.No.872 in Thuttampatti Distribution of Tharamangalam Section by considering his application dated 10.03.2014.

¶14

Though several allegations and counter allegations have been made by the petitioner and the private respondents, those details need not be gone into in the light of the stand taken by the respondents-Electricity Board. The Electricity Board has filed counter-affidavit as well as an additional counter-affidavit. It is suffice to note the averments made in the additional counteraffidavit.

¶15

The petitioner has been granted an electricity service connection to his rice mill. He applied for an additional load to be provided to his Mill. The Board assessed the situation and found that the capacity of the existing transformer is inadequate and unless and until the old transformer is replaced, additional load cannot be sanctioned and effected. The existing transformer is situated 503 mtrs. away from the petitioner's land. Therefore, the Board was agreeable to provide additional load, provided the petitioner identifies a place, which is nearer to his Mill, for erecting new transformer. The petitioner appears to have identified a land, which is opposite to his rice mill.

¶16

The sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, O&M, TANGEDCO, Tharamangalam, is placed on record, wherein the Panchayat Road has been shown with “pink” marking and the petitioner's land with “orange” marking. The existing transformer is shown with “green” marking and the proposed place for erecting the new transformer is shown with “yellow” marking. From the sketch, it is seen that the land identified by the petitioner for erecting new transformer is situated opposite to his rice mill. If that place is accepted, then the electric line should be laid across the panchayat road. Since the petitioner applied for additional load, he should find out a place along side his property, so that the electric line could be drawn straight without crossing the panchayat road and if the electric line is laid across the road, the same will be detrimental

¶17

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

¶18

to the public during rainy season. Therefore, the land identified by the petitioner for erecting transformer is not feasible for consideration, though the petitioner would state that the land is “maichal” and respondents 3 and 4 cannot object to the same. In this context, it is relevant to note Clause 27(6) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Code, wherein it is stated that the intending consumer is bound to bear the cost for erection of transformer.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the second respondent, indicating any unobjectionable site along with the petitioner's property or adjoining his property within a period of two weeks and if such site is identified by the petitioner, the second respondent shall cause inspection on the site and dispose of the representation within a period of three weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Lok Adalat)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ATR
Copies to;
1. The Superintending Engineer (O & M)
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO)
Mettur Circle, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District.
2. The Assistant Engineer (O & M)
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO)
Tharamangalam-636502, Salem District.
+1cc to M/s.M.R.Jothimanian, Advocate, S.R.No.20432
+1cc to Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, Advocate, S.R.No.20748
W.P. No. 31906 of 2014
SAI(CO)
CA(28/04/2015)

¶21

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

C.Veerappan, v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Veerappan, 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

Nh.Thariq Mahmood Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

G.Nagasundaram, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.a.Patchiappane Vs The Director

Muthulakshmi, Vs the Chairman

M.v.Paulraj Vs the Director of School

M/S.Medopharm Vs the Special Director