Disposed

Smt Lakshmikantham v. Smt P.Anandavalli Ammal

Madras HC11 Oct 2017WA/2094/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged an interim order restoring an electricity service connection pending the disposal of a writ petition. The Court observed that as the supply was already restored, no interference was needed with the interim order regarding that direction, though observations on possession would not bar a contest on merits.

What did the court decide?

The intra-court appeal was disposed of holding that no interference was needed with the interim order as supply was already restored.

Smt Lakshmikantham Vs Smt P.Anandavalli… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 11.10.2017

¶2

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶3

W.A No.2094 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶4

Lakshmikantham ...Appellant

¶5

Vs 1.P.Anandavalli Ammal 2.Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman 800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. 4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Sendur, Villupuram District. 5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Vedur - 605 602, Villupuram District. ...Respondents

¶6

Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.21980 of 2013 on 19.09.2013.

¶7

MP.1/2013:WP.21980/2013

¶8

Petition file Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to restore the petitioners electricity service connection No.992 in Survey No.61/1 of Palapattu Village Tindivanam Division Tindivanam Taluk Villupuram District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶9

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

¶10

WP.NO.21980/2013

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Consitution of India pryaing this Hon'ble Court to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 4th respondent herein pertaining to his order dt 29.7.2013 made in A.E.E./O & M/Vedur/D. Petition/A. No.60/2013 and to quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to restore the petitioners electricity service connection No.992 in Survey No.61/1 of Palapattu Village Tindivanam Division Tindivanam Taluk Villupuram District

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.P.Thiagarajan For Respondents: Mr.T.Dhanasekaran for R1 Mr.M.Varun Standing Counsel for R2 to R5

¶13

The challenge in this intra court appeal is to the interim order dated 19 September, 2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.21980 of 2013, directing the respondents 2 to 5 to restore the service connection to the premises bearing No.992 in Survey No.61/1 of Palapattu Village, Tindivanam Division, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that he would not press for vacating the interim order at this point of time in view of the fact that the writ petition itself is ripe for final hearing. According to the learned counsel, the observation made by the learned single Judge with respect to the possession would prejudice the case of the appellant and as such, the said observation deserves to be expunged.

¶15

We have also heard the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 5.

¶16

The learned single Judge having found prima face case made out by the first respondent granted interim order directing the respondents 2 to 5 to restore service connection. The observation made in the order dated 19 September, 2013 was only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory application. Since the Electricity Department has already restored the electricity supply, there is no question of interfering with the order passed by the learned single Judge at this point of time. However, we make it clear that the observation made by the

¶17

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

¶18

learned single Judge with respect to possession shall not come in the way of contesting the case on merits by the appellant. In short, the writ petition has to be decided on its own merits, without in any way being influenced by the observation made by the learned single Judge in the order dated 19 September, 2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.21980 of 2013.

¶19

The intra court appeal is disposed of as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
svki
To
1.Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Rep. by its Chairman
800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance)
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance)
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Sendur, Villupuram District.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
(Operation and Maintenance)
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Vedur - 605 602, Villupuram District.
+1 CC Mr.P.Thiagarajan, Advocate SR.No.73653
+1 CC Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, Advocate SR.No.73016
SV(CO)
EGR 20/11/2017

¶21

W.A No.2094 of 2013

¶22

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

Smt Lakshmikantham v. Smt P.Anandavalli Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmikantham v. Smt P.Anandavalli Ammal

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

M/S.Vishwa Infrastructures Vs the Chief Engineer (a/C)

Glenrock Estates (P) Ltd., Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Dasarathan Vs the Chairman

Dr.P.Selvaraj Vs Chief Secretary to Govt of

S.L.N. Builders Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P. Anand (Minor) Vs the Directorate of Government