Dismissed

A. Kalliappan v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC26 Apr 2018WP/9112/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a show cause notice for alleged misuse of a free electricity connection was dismissed. The court held that the notice was not irregular and the petitioner must approach the competent authority to establish innocence regarding the stated irregularities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to submit explanations to competent authority; no order as to costs.

A. Kalliappan Vs the Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.04.2018

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶4

WP.No.9112 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶5

A.Kaliappan

¶6

...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tirupur Distribution Circle,
Kumaran Nagar,
Tirupur - 604 602
2.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation,
And distribution corporation,
Rep. by its Assistant Engineer,
Tirupur Electricity Distribution Circle,
South/Sevur - 641 655,
Tirupur District
... Respondents
PRAYER

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarifide Mandamus calling for the record pertaining in Ka.No.E,Me.Po/The/Sa/Ka/manu/A74/14 dated 17.03.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to disconnect the service connection bearing No.126 situated in survey No.470/4, Thandukarapalaymllay, Avinashi. TK., Tirupur District. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Tamilavel For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar

¶8

The show cause notice issued by the second respondent in proceedings dated 17.03.2014 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶9

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

¶10

In respect of the common well situated in Survey No.470/3 with service connection No.126, the petitioner claims that the said land belongs to his father one Mr.Arumuga Gounder. After the demise of his father, the writ petitioner and his brother and the sons and daughters of one Avinashi Gounder namely Natarajan, Ganesan, Barameswaran and Poongodi are in possession of the said property. On account of certain irregularities in respect of the usage of the free electricity connection, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 17.03.2014. On inspection, it was found that the petitioner himself has indulged in misuse of electricity. The petitioner had unauthorizedly extending the electrical supply to another bore well other than that was originally approved and effected on 03.04.1988.

¶11

However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner opposed the contentions by stating that the writ petitioner has not committed any such irregularities in respect of the usage of free electricity.

¶12

May that it be. No writ can be entertained in a routine manner against a notice. Judicial review against a show cause notice is certainly limited. The writ petition can be entertained in the event, when the show cause notice issued by the authority is without jurisdiction and if there is an allegation of malafides are raised or if the same is in violation of the statutory rules in force. Even in the case of raising an allegation of malafides, the authority against whom the allegation is raised, is to be impleaded as respondent party in his personal capacity in the writ proceedings. In the absence of any one of these legal grounds, no writ proceedings can be entertained against the show cause notice.

¶13

However, in the present case on hand, the show cause notice was issued on account of certain allegations against the writ petitioner in respect the usage of the free electricity. The free electricity provided by the Board has to be utilised in accordance with the terms and conditions and in the event of any violation, the authorities competent are empowered to initiate action in accordance with the procedures contemplated.

¶14

This being the principles, there is no irregularity in respect of the show cause notice issued by the second respondent. If at all the writ petitioner is innocent, he has to submit his explanations to the competent authority and establish his innocence or otherwise in respect of the irregularity now stated in respect of usage of free electricity in the notice.

¶15

In this view of the matter, it is left open to the writ

¶16

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

¶17

petitioner to submit his explanations / objections on the show cause notice dated 17.03.2014 and thereafter, the respondents are bound to take a decision and pass order on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible without causing undue delay.

¶18

With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
lok
To
1.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tirupur Distribution Circle,
Kumaran Nagar,
Tirupur - 604 602
2.The Assistant Engineer,
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation,
And distribution corporation,
Tirupur Electricity Distribution Circle,
South/Sevur - 641 655,
Tirupur District
+1cc to Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, Advocate in sr.no.31611

¶20

WP.No.9112 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 nr 16/05/2018

¶21

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

A. Kalliappan v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Kalliappan v. the Superintending 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

C.Arumugam, Vs The Managing Director

M. Jayaraman Vs Mr. Chandra Mohan I.A.S.

M/S.Agil Freight Logistics Vs the General Manager

V.Vajjiram Vs Union of India

C.Muniraj Vs the Tamilnadu Olympic

P.Valarmathi Vs the Executive Officer