Disposed

Muniyamma, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC22 Feb 2016WP/6362/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposed a writ petition seeking directions to effect disconnection of electricity service to lower-level respondents. The court directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to communicate the best respondents' order of 11.01.2016 to the petitioner within two weeks. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to communicate the order dated 11.01.2016 to the petitioner within two weeks.

Muniyamma, Vs The Superintendent Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

WP.No.6362/2016

Muniyamma

..Petitioner

Versus
1.The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO, [TNEB]
Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution
Krishnagiri.
2.The Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO [Operation & Maintenance]
Krishnagiri 635 001.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO, Royakottai Road
Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District.
4.Ramanji
5.Ellamma ..Respondents

¶9

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2015 and pass orders in accordance with law for disconnection of electricity service connection effected to the respondents 4 and 5 within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharathkumar
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Varunkumar
ORDER

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Varunkumar, learned Standing Counsel accepting notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶12

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

¶13

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider her representation dated 17.12.2015 for effecting disconnection of electricity service to the respondents 4 and 5.

¶14

3 Mr.M.Varunkumar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2015 has been considered and an order has been passed on 11.01.2016.

¶15

4 In the light of the above submission, there will be a
direction to the 3 rd respondent to communicate the said order
dated 11.01.2016 to the petitioner by Registered Post with
Acknowledgment, if the same is not already communicated, within
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
5 The writ petition is disposed of with the above
direction. No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
AP
To
1.The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO, [TNEB]
Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution
Krishnagiri.
2.The Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO [Operation & Maintenance]
Krishnagiri 635 001.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO, Royakottai Road
Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar Advocate sr.11207/16
WP.No.6362/2016
aa27/02/2016

¶16

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

Muniyamma, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyamma, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Dayanidhi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Virgo Polymers (India) Limited Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

V.Govindasamy, Vs The Registrar of

The Management, Vs the Presiding Officer

T.T.Ganesan Vs Kiran Kurala

Balaji Singh, Vs the Project Director