In this writ appeal, the High Court disposed of the matter after counsel agreed that electricity supply confers no title. The case involves a connection to existing electricity supply not restoring service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2016 and
CMP(MD)No.4522 of 2016
K.Palanisamy
.. Appellant
Vs.
1.Nallathambi
2.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance/East, TANGEDCO,
Manapparai, Trichy District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent, against the common order dated 25.07.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.10006 of 2012.
Prayer in WP(MD). 10006/ 2012 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in the nature of writ, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st Respondent made in Ka.No.U.Mi.Po/E & Ka/Keeza/Mana/Ko.Kattu/A.No.84/2012 dated 07.07.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to restore the Service Connection No. 255-001-773 and pass such further or other orders.
For Appellants: Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan
For R1 : Mr.R.Murali for Mr.K.Govindarajan JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
When the condonation application came up for hearing, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only contention raised by Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan, learned counsel for the appellant, is that though the appellant was shown as
2
respondent No.2 in the writ petition, orders have been passed without providing an opportunity to put forth his contentions.
2.Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that pursuant to the directions made in W.P.(MD)No.W.P.(MD)No.10006 of 2012, dated 25.07.2012, electricity service connection has already been effected.
3.Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly agreed for an order being passed to the effect that the supply of electricity would not confer any right or title over the subject property, for which, supply is given.
4.Placing on record the above submission, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
rj2 To
1.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance/East, TANGEDCO,
Manapparai, Trichy District.
+1CCto Mr.K.Govindarajan Advocate Sr.No.24506
GJM/GSV/PM/6.5.16-2p-3C
W.A.(MD)No.708 of 2016
26.04.2016
K.Palanisamy
1.Nallathambi
The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance/East, TANGEDCO, Manapparai, Trichy District
S.MANIKUMAR
S.S.SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
