Disposed

S.Srinivasa Reddy, v. The Chairman

Madras HC21 Jan 2016WP/1751/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Assistant Executive Engineer to consider representations regarding a change in industrial tariff for the petitioner's factory, directing action within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks.

S.Srinivasa Reddy, Vs The Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.1751 of 2016

¶6

S.Srinivasa Reddy ...Petitioner

¶7

vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Adm.I, TANGEDGO, Krishnagiri Electric Distribution Circle, Krishnagiri. 3.The Executive Engineer, (O & M), TANGEDGO, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 4.The Asst. Executive Engineer/Distribution, (O & M), TANGEDGO, Sipcot, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.8.2015 and 02.12.2015 to change the terrified industrial connection under Service Connection No.066-019-473/IIIB, to the petitioner's factory at Meenakshi Nagar, Begapalli post, Hosur, Krishnagiri District within the time frame.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.D.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents: Mr.Varun Kumar ORDER

¶10

Heard Mr.M.D.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Varun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a direction to respondent No.4 to consider his representation dated 19.08.2015 and 02.12.2015 to change the tariff in respect of Service Connection No.066-019-473/IIIB given to the petitioner's factory.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that reasonable time may be given to respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits.

¶14

In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.8.2015 and 02.12.2015 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No costs.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bbr To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Adm.I, TANGEDGO, Krishnagiri Electric Distribution Circle, Krishnagiri. 3.The Executive Engineer, (O & M), TANGEDGO, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 4.The Asst. Executive Engineer/Distribution, (O & M), TANGEDGO, Sipcot, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. + 1 cc to Mr.M.D. Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate Sr.3519 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Varun Kumar, Advocate Sr 4111 (2/5/16) W.P.No.1751 of 2016 KJI(CO) EU 22.1.16

¶16

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

S.Srinivasa Reddy, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Srinivasa Reddy, v. The Chairman

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

M/s.Karthik Enterprises Vs The Appellate Deputy

M/s.Sree Shanthosh Steels Pvt. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Bharat Heavy Electricals Vs Registrar of Cooperative

The Management of Kancheepuram Vs M.Govindan

Farhan T.Ali Vs the Chairman

The Managing Director Vs the Joint Commissioner of