An order in a writ petition challenging the discontinuation of electricity supply to a petitioner. The court dismissed the petition, holding it was not maintainable because the petitioner was a tenant who had alternative remedies under the Rent Control Act to seek restoration of amenities rather than approaching the High Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P. No.198 of 2012
A.Essakimuthu .. Petitioner
Vs. 1.The Assistant Engineer, (Consumption & Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Phycrafts Road, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005. 3.Miss.Pushpa .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give New Single Phase Domestic Electricity connection to the petitioner's portion in old door No.89, New No.140, ground floor, Iyyamudali Street, Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002.
For Petitioner : Mr.Narasimhulu For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar
Standing Counsel for R1 & R2
M4.V.G.Suresh Kumar for R3
O R D E R
Heard Mr.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2; Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
1.The Assistant Engineer,
(Consumption & Distribution),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Phycrafts Road, Triplicane,
Chennai - 600 005.
+1cc to Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar, Advocate sr.68663
+1cc to Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar, Advocate sr.68381
W.P. No.198 of 2012
ss[co]
srg 15/11/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking electricity connection is maintainable when the petitioner failed to approach the Rent Controller to restore amenities under the Rent Control Act.
Whether the petitioner, having already filed separate proceedings for restoration of electricity supply under the Rent Control Act, can bypass those remedies to seek a writ.
Whether the petitioner's contention that the building is dilapidated and they have shifted residence merits dismissal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Essakimuthu
The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Miss. Pushpa
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
