Dismissed

J.Devadoss s/o. Joseph, v. The Chairman

Madras HC11 Dec 2017WA/1469/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge appeal against a writ order was dismissed. The High Court upheld the direction granting electricity connection to the tenant (Writ Petitioner) subject to payment of arrears, holding that civil dispute pendency does not warrant denial of essential service. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the writ direction restoring electricity connection upon payment of arrears within four weeks was upheld.

J.Devadoss s/o. Joseph, Vs The Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 11.12.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER &

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.A.No.1469 of 2017 against W.P.39346 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.19537 of 2017
J.Devadoss ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer
Selva Vinayagapuram Kovil Street
I.C.F. Colony,
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 058.
3.Tmt.Shanthimary .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 24.04.2017 made in W.P.No.39346 of 2016. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd Respondents Assistant Engineer I.C.F. Colony Ayapakkam Chennai- 58 to restore/ give the electricity connection to the petitioners residential house in bearing Door No.11-A School Street Chinna Colony Athiput Ambattur Taluk Tiruvallur District.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.C.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.Ramdas for R3

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

(Judgment of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J)

¶11

This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶12

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

¶13

The appellant, before us, was arrayed as respondent No.3, in the writ petition, in which, the impugned judgment has been passed.

¶14

The appellant avers that, he is the absolute owner of the property and that the writ petitioner, i.e., respondent No.3, herein is a tenant with whom there is a civil dispute pending. The suit, as noticed by the learned Single Judge has been filed by the appellant herein for declaration and recovery of possession of the subject property. Since electricity connection was not made available to respondent No.3 by respondent No.1/Corporation, a writ petition was preferred. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition in favour of respondent No.3 herein, with the following operative directions:

¶15

“....5.Considering the above, a direction is issued to the second respondent to restore the electricity service connection on condition that the petitioner pays the entire arrears and continue to pay the further amount subject to the civil proceedings. The said restoration will have to be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the amount payable by the petitioner.”

¶16

According to us, the appeal has no merit. The learned Single Judge has, in our view, correctly come to the conclusion that the pendency of the civil dispute has nothing to do with the grant of electricity connection to respondent No.3, i.e., the original writ petitioner.

¶17

4.1.Furthermore, the learned Single Judge has made, the grant of electricity connection by respondent No.1 herein, subject to payment of the entire arrears and with an additional condition that respondent No.3 will continue to pay the current electricity dues as well.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected pending application shall stand closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

vsm

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer
Selva Vinayagapuram Kovil Street
I.C.F. Colony,
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 058.
+ 1 cc to MR. P.A. Chithramani, Advocate Sr.88603
+ 1 cc to Mr. C. Venkatesan, Advocate Sr.87651
W.A.No.1469 of 2017
RJ(CO)
EU(23/01/2018 )

¶26

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

J.Devadoss s/o. Joseph, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Devadoss s/o. Joseph, 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

C. Mariappan, 60 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Venugopal, S/O.Veeraraga Vs the Commissioner

Nithya Jothi, F/21 Yrs Vs State Rep. by

Annakeli Thomas, F/a 41 Yrs, Vs the Principal Secretary

M.Chandiran, Vs The Tamil Nadu State

S.Rabik Raja Vs The General Manager