Disposed

R.Thangavel v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC14 Feb 2017WP/14455/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to provide electricity connection to a 3rd respondent via an alternative overhead route, accepting a proposal meant to avoid disturbing the petitioner's coconut trees, thereby disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed TNEB to provide electricity connection via an alternative overhead route within 8 weeks upon payment of the balance amount.

R.Thangavel Vs the Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

W.P. No. 14455 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P. No. 1/2013 and WMP No.36280/2016

¶8

R. Thangavel .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Erisinampatti Udumalpet Taluk Tiruppur District.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Udumalpet Taluk Tiruppur District.

¶12

R. Subramaniam S/o. Late Rangasamy Gounder D. No.1/2, Salaiyur Post Udumalpet Taluk Tiruppur District.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the

¶15

¶16

respondents 1 and 2 from taking any steps for the purpose of giving electrical service connection to the bore well belonging to the 3^rd respondent situated in S.F. No.247/4, Periapappanoothu village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District pending disposal of the suit in O.S. No. 187 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalpet or appeals therefrom and pass further orders.

¶17

For Petitioner : S. Thangavel For Respondents : Mr. S. K.Rameshwar Standing Counsel for TNEB for R1 & R2

¶18

Mr. N. Thiagarajan for R3

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to

¶21

forbear the respondents 1 and 2, from taking any steps to provide electrical service connection to the bore well belonging to the 3^rd respondent, situated in S.F. No.247/4, Periapappanoothu village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District pending disposal of the suit in O.S. No. 187 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalpet or appeals there from.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the properties comprised in S.F. Nos. 247 and 248 situated at Periapappanoothu Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District jointly belongs to the petitioner, his brother Subramaniam, the 3^rd respondent and also one Selvi, wife of his deceased brother Ponnusamy. He further submitted that when the 3^rd respondent applied for electrical service connection to his bore well, the petitioner objected since some coconut trees have to be cut and it would cause hardship to him. So, the respondents 1 and 2, stopped the work and directed the 3^rd respondent to get suitable orders from competent civil court for obtaining service connection. Hence, the 3^rd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.187 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalpet seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his family from getting electrical service connection to his bore well in the suit property. An interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.549 of 2010 on 22.04.2010, ex-parte. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.575 of 2010 and got the interim injunction vacated vide order dated 29.04.2010. Inspite of the same, respondents 1 and 2 initiated steps to provide electrical service

¶24

¶25

connection to the 3^rd respondent and so the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

Based on the counter filed by the 3^rd respondent, learned

¶27

counsel submitted that though the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are brothers, due to some personal enmity the petitioner made objection for granting electrical connection to his bore well and that no hindrance or

¶28

danger would be caused due to the service connection.

¶29

Relying on the counter filed by the 1^st respondent, learned

¶30

Standing Counsel submitted that in view of the objection raised by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent was directed to get NOC from the petitioner

¶31

or to arrange for a way leave as per 27(6) of the Distribution Code, 2004.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶33

Standing Counsel for TNEB and learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Perused the material available on record.

¶34

¶35

During the last hearing learned Standing Counsel was

¶36

directed to ascertain an alternative way to provide electrical connection to the 3^rd respondent, without affecting the petitioner. As per the direction of this Court, today, learned Standing Counsel provided a feasibility alternate route sketch after serving a copy of the same to both the parties. The petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent were present in the Court and accepted the proposal for providing electricity connection to the third respondent, through overhead lines in the alternative route, as per the sketch submitted before this Court. The said sketch shall form part and parcel of this order.

¶37

The learned Standing Counsel for TNEB would submit that

¶38

the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has agreed to provide electricity connection in the alternative route, subject to payment of the difference amount of Rs.28,000/- (approximately) by the third respondent, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

On receipt of such amount, the Tamil Nadu Electricity

¶40

¶41

Board is directed to provide electricity connection to the third respondent within a period of 8 weeks, therefrom.

¶42

The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above

¶43

observation. It is also open to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to make any variation or deviation, if required as per the Sketch, without affecting the right of the petitioner. Consequently, the connected MPs

¶44

are closed. No costs.

¶45

07.02.2017

¶46

Index: Yes/ No

¶47

[ Issue order copy on 13.02.2017] avr

¶48

¶49

The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Erisinampatti Udumalpet Taluk Tiruppur District.

¶50

The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Udumalpet Taluk Tiruppur District.

¶51

¶52

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.

¶53

avr

¶54

W.P. No. 14455 of 2013

¶55

and M.P. No. 1/2013 and WMP No.36280/2016

¶56

07.02.2017

¶57

¶58

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Thangavel v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Thangavel v. the Assistant Engineer

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

K.K.Thirumurugan Vs the Inspector General of

T.Muthukaruppan, Vs the Secretary to Government

The Managing Director Vs G.Rathinam

Dr.S.Anandan, Vs the Tahsildar

P. Arunshori Vs the Principal Secretary

Jacob Vs the Block Development Officer