Disposed

A.Chandra v. the Executive Engineer

Madras HC23 Jan 2017WP(MD)/15972/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench directed the Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of TNGEDCO to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2015 regarding the realignment of an electricity power line to an alternative way away from the petitioner's home.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2015 regarding realignment of the power line and pass orders within one month after hearing the third respondent.

A.Chandra Vs the Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2017 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

W.P(MD)No.15972 of 2015

A.Chandra

... Petitioner

vs.

1)The Executive Engineer, O/o. of Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited(TNGEDCO), Sankarankovil,

¶9

Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2)The Assistant Engineer, O/o. of Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited(TNGEDCO) (Distribution), Sankarankovil,

¶11

Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3)S.Krishnan ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to realign the electricity power line to the home of Respondent No.3 to alternative way away from petitioners home within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 & R2 : Mr.G.Kasinatha Durai For R3 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Though the prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to realign the electricity power line to the home of Respondent No.3 to alternative way away from petitioner's home within a time frame, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2015 seeking the abovesaid prayer, and to pass orders, within a time frame.

¶17

2.In view of the limited relief sought for, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2015, seeking to realign the electricity power line to the home of Respondent No.3

¶18

¶19

to alternative way away from petitioner's home, and to pass orders in accordance with law, if there are no legal impediments and after hearing the 3rd respondent, within a period of one month preferably on or before 05.03.2017. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (RTI)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1)The Executive Engineer, O/o. of Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited(TNGEDCO), Sankarankovil,

¶25

Tirunelveli District.

¶26

2)The Assistant Engineer, O/o. of Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited(TNGEDCO) (Distribution), Sankarankovil,

¶27

Tirunelveli District.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.G.KASINATHA DURAI, Advocate, SR No. 3936. +1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHY ROY, Advocate, SR No. 3659

¶29

NBI

¶30

PSM/BS/08.02.2017/2P/5C

¶31

W.P(MD)No.15972 of 2015 23.01.2017

¶32

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

A.Chandra v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chandra v. the Executive 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

S. Arockia Selvi Vs the Senior Regional Manager

G.Gunasekarn, S/O.Govindan Vs the Tamilnadu State

S.Murugananda Bharathi, Vs Chairman -Cum-Managing

M.Thangapandi, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Secy.

V.S.Ramaiah, Vs the Principal Secretary

S.Murugan Vs the Management of