Allowed

K.Gurusamy, v. the Chairman

Madras HC2 Feb 2016WP/8600/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 concerning a civil dispute over a well affected the petitioner's power supply. The court directed the third respondent to consider a fresh petition if the petitioner produces documentary evidence substantiating certain claims, ensuring the fourth respondent's service connection remains undisturbed until an order is passed within eight weeks. The main petitio

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and documents; the third respondent directed to consider it and pass an order within 8 weeks without distu

K.Gurusamy, Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 2/2/2016

¶3

C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

W.P.No.8600 of 2014

¶5

K.Gurusamy ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Erode 638 009.
3. The Superintending Engineer
Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Namakkal 637 001.
4. K. Murugesan ... Respondents
(R4 Impleaded as per order
dated 04/09/2014 in MP.1/2014
in WP.8600/2014

¶7

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29/7/2013 and take action thereon.

¶8

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Mr.S.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Tamilkumaran for the fourth respondent.

¶11

This writ petition has been filed praying to direct the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29/7/2013 and take action thereon.

¶12

The dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is a civil dispute, pertaining to the right over the well. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that there is a co-owner to the property. But his case is that certain documents which have recognised the co-ownership of the fourth respondent has been cancelled. However, as on date when service connection was granted, the fourth respondent was unable to satisfy the authorities. Therefore, if the petitioner has got certain documents in his possession which are of subsequent date, it is open to the petitioner to approach the third respondent with those documents.

¶13

Thus, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner, to submit a fresh representation, along with supportive documents as to on what basis, the petitioner claims that the documents produced by the fourth respondent has been cancelled or the revenue authority has given a specific order, stating that the name of the fourth respondent has been deleted from the patta, etc. If such a representation is given, the third respondent, shall consider the same, after notice to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Till such orders are passed, service connection of the fourth respondent shall not be disturbed. The above direction shall be completed, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of the representation, by the third respondent. No costs.

¶14

Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

¶15

mvs.

¶16

¶17

The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

¶18

The Chief Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Erode 638 009.

¶19

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

¶20

The Superintending Engineer Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Namakkal 637 001.

¶21

+1cc to M/s. P.Thamizh Kumar, Advocate Sr.7376 +1cc to M/S S.K.Raameshuwar, Advocate Sr.7033 +1cc to M/S S.saravanan, Advocate Sr.6784

¶22

W.P.No.8600 of 2014

¶23

RSI(CO)
RVR 15/02/2016

¶24

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

K.Gurusamy, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gurusamy, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venture Power System India Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

R.Bavani Vs B.Sabitha

K.Anbazhagan Vs The Pollachi Municipality

N.Kathikeyan, Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

Akkammal Steels Pvt.Ltd., Vs State of T.N.Rep.by Secretary

A.Balasubramanian Vs The Superintending Engineer