Disposed

Mrs.Selvi v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC4 Feb 2016WP/1436/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, in a writ petition filed under Article 226, directed the Superintending Engineer to consider granting an electricity service connection to the petitioner. The court set aside objections regarding forest land status based on a report and directed a resolution of property disputes between the petitioner and a third party, Yasothai, via notice, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to issue notices to the petitioner and a third-party objector, examine documents, and decide the service connection application within four weeks.

Mrs.Selvi Vs The Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No. 1436 of 2015

¶6

Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Tiruvannamalai
Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The District Forest Officer
Tiruvannamalai
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Tahsildar
Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
(RR2 & 3 are suo motu impleaded as party respondents
by the Orders of the Court dated 03.08.2015 and
16.09.2015 respectively made in WP.1436 of 2015)

¶7

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's house at No.1496 Rani Anna Durai Nagar. Kanchi Road, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District and pass further orders.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Pari For Respondents : Mr. M. Varun Kumar for R1 Mr. N. Inbanathan, GA for R2 Mr. R. M. Muthukumar for R3 O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the first respondent to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's house at No.1496 Rani Anna Durai Nagar. Kanchi Road, Vengikal, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of her property and is residing there by constructing a small house. At the time, when the Writ petition was entertained, there was an objection by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board stating that the land is a forest land. Therefore, this Court suo motto impleaded the Tahsildar and the District Forest Officer, as respondents 3 and 2 in this writ petition and directed them to file their counters. The District Forest Officer, Tiruvannamalai, vide communication dated 07.09.2015 addressed to the Government Advocate (Forest) has stated that the land does not belong to the forest department. At this stage, it would be relevant to extract the said communication of the District Forest Officer :

¶12

“jpU. bry;tk;. j-bg/mg;ghJiu vd;gtu; r/vz;/ 256-1 nt';fpf;fhy; fpuhkj;jpy; fl;oa[s;s tPl;ow;F kpd;rhu

¶13

,izg;g[ tH';ff;nfhup ghu;itapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sthW tHf;F bjhlu;e;Js;shu;/

¶14

,J bjhlu;ghf nkw;go r/vz;/ bjhlu;g[ila , lj;jpid ,f;nfhl;l jpUtz;zhkiy rufu; K:yk; jzpf;if bra;ag;gl;ljpy; r/vz;/ 256-1 nt';fpf;fhy; fpuhkk; vd;w , lj;jpy; kDjhuu; tPL fl;oa[s;s ,lk; tdj;Jiwf;F bjhlu;g [ilajy;;y/ nkw;go ,lk; fhg;g[f;fhL (Reserve Forests) my;y/ mt;tplk; gO;rkp jupR epykhFk;/

¶15

Thus, one of the objection raised by the Electricity Board does not survive any longer, since the Forest Department has stated that the land of the petitioner has no connection with the Forest department. The Village Administrative Officer has also given a certificate stating that the land is a 'Panjami Tharisu land'. In such circumstances, there cannot be any further impediment for the first respondent to consider the petitioner's request for service connection.

¶16

In the counter affidavit it has been stated that one Yasothai has submitted an objection stating that the house site belong to her and the writ petitioner's mother Tmt.Kamala, wife of Thiru Govindasamy, has encroached the house and requested the department not to give the service connection to her. On behalf of the said Yasothai, one counsel has sent a legal notice.

¶17

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

¶18

Though counter affidavit has been filed stating so, the said Yasothai has not been impleaded as respondent in this case. Now that the Forest department has issued a report stating that it is not a forest land and the Village Administrative Officer has issued a certificate stating that it is a Panjami Tharisu land, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's case for grant of electricity service connection, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the said Yasothai and going through the relevant documents produced by them and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date on which the representation of the petitioner is submitted, along with copy of this order. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
avr
To
1. The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Tiruvannamalai
Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The District Forest Officer
Tiruvannamalai
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Tahsildar
Tiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.M. Pari, Advocate, S.R.No.8056
+1cc to Mr.M. Varun Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.7486
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(Forest), S.R.No.7337
W.P.No. 1436 of 2015
BVR(CO)
CA(18/02/2016)

¶20

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

Mrs.Selvi v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Selvi 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

T.Thuthivanan Vs The Regional Provident Fund

The Joint Secretary, Vs the Presiding Officer

N.Selvaraj Vs The Superintending Engineer

R.Bommanna Chettiar, Vs The District Collector

N.R.Chandrasekaran, Vs The Registrar

A.R.S.Shanmugasundaram, Vs The Chairman