Disposed

S.Anwar Basha, v. The Chairman

Madras HC20 Feb 2018WP/3622/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the TANGEDCO to dispose of a pending representation for electricity service connection. The Court observed that the lower authority failed to pass an order. It directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the matter within four weeks after hearing the petitioner and objectors. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation within four weeks after hearing the petitioner and interested persons.

S.Anwar Basha, Vs The Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.3622 of 2018

¶6

S.Anwar Basha S/o.K.M.Hareef .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Chennai-600 002. 2.The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO Elavoor, Gummidipoondi Taluk Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 08.06.2016, to provide Electricity service connection to the petitioner's residence Door No.1, Mathukkal Kuppam Village, Elavoor Post, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District for domestic purpose subject to Form-1 Supply of Low Tension (Single Phase) dated 2.12.2015, received by the 2nd respondent.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar standing counsel O R D E R

¶9

Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶10

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose his representation dated 08.06.2016, wherein and whereby he sought for providing electricity service connection to the premises at Door No.1, Mathukkal Kuppam Village, Elavoor Post, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶11

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

¶12

3. Heard both sides.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation seeking for electricity service connection is still pending and the respondents have not passed any order so far.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, based on instructions, submitted that a person, by name Vijaya Ponnusamy, is objecting for providing the electricity service connection to the petitioner, by claiming herself as the owner of the property.

¶15

In any event as the respondents, more particularly, the second respondent has not passed any order on the petitioner's representation, without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of, only with a direction to the second respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 08.06.2016, after hearing the petitioner, the said Vijaya Ponnusamy and also other interested persons, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The Chairman
TANGEDCO
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Assistant Engineer
TANGEDCO
Elavoor, Gummidipoondi Taluk
Tiruvallur District
+1cc to Mr.P.Venkatesan, Advocate, S.R.No.12956
+1cc to Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.12628

¶17

W.P.No.3622 of 2018 AK(CO) RRK(02/03/2018)

¶18

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

S.Anwar Basha, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anwar Basha, v. The Chairman

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

D..Paranthaman, Vs The Chairman

The Divisional Controller Vs The Motor Vehicle Officer

B.Senthilvel Vs The District Collector

G.Rama Reddy, Vs The Tahsildar

M.Shanthi, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Karnan, Vs The Tashildar