Allowed

Kaveriamma @ Kavamma v. The Chairman (Tangedco)

Madras HC6 Feb 2018WP/9152/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Madras directed the Electricity Department to provide permanent agricultural electricity to the petitioner despite objections from third parties, as they were no longer seriously opposed provided their operations and properties were not affected.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st to 3rd Respondents to provide power supply to the petitioner's land and work out the route affecting the 4th and 5th Respondents within six weeks.

Kaveriamma @ Kavamma Vs The Chairman (Tangedco) — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 06.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.9152 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.10072 & 10073 of 2017

¶8

Kaveriamma @ Kavamma .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Chairman, (TANGEDCO)
The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,(TANGEDCO),
The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Assistant Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance)
TANGEDCO)
The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Surjabura Road, Bagalur Town and Post,
Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District – 635 103
4. V.Chandrappa,
S/o Venkatappa
5. V.Ellappa
S/o Venkatappa ..Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the letter No.f/vz;-fpkpth-, & guh- ghfnfh/jmcr-m/vz;/131-12 dated 01.10.2012 issued by 3^rd respondent as illegal and to consequently direct them to give permanent agricultural electricity service to the petitioner in S.No.33/1A measuring around 0.53.5 hectares and in S.No.33/1E1 0.34.5 hectares apart from two agricultural bore wells measuring around 0.010 hectares and in all measuring around 2.19 acres.

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaseem Mohamed

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.M.Varunkumar, Standing Counsel for R1 to R3 Mr.M.V.Krishnan for R4 and R5.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 01.10.2012, wherein and whereby, the 3^rd respondent refused to provide the electricity connection to the petitioner's land only on the reason that the 4^th and 5^th respondents herein are objecting to the same.

¶15

After notice, the respondents entered appearance through their respective counsels.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4^th and 5^th respondents may not have any objection for providing power supply to the petitioner's land if the drawal of power line is not going to affect the 4^th and 5^th respondents in any manner. He further submitted that in the suit filed in O.S.No.102/2013, the petitioner has obtained an interim order in his favour before the Appellate Court in CMA.No.05/2015 on the file of Sub-Court, Hosur. However, he submitted that the issue involved in the said suit is nothing to do with the provision of power supply to the petitioner's land.

¶17

On the other hand, the 4^th and 5^th respondents submitted that as long as the Electricity Department is not going to disturb the enjoyment of their property and their agricultural operation, while drawing such power line, they may not have any objection for providing power supply to the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since the 4^th and 5^th respondents have objected for the provision of power supply through their lands to the petitioner, she can find an alternative route.

¶19

Heard both sides.

¶20

The petitioner seeks for power supply to her lands. Though the 4^th and 5^th respondents initially objected before the Electricity Department against provision of power supply to the petitioner's land, now before this Court, they submitted that so long as they are not affected by the provision of such power supply in any manner, they will not have any objection. Needless to say that while drawing the power line overhead across the land of the 4^th and 5^th respondents, it is the duty of the respondents 1 to 3 to see that their agricultural operation as well as their poultry farm are not affected in any manner. Therefore, there is no necessity for the petitioner to find an alternative route, especially, when the respondents 4 & 5 are

¶21

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

¶22

not seriously objecting to the provision of power supply to the petitioner's land, as long as they are not disturbed in any manner. Therefore, it is for the 1^st to 3^rd respondents to work out accordingly and provide the power supply to the petitioner's land without affecting the interest of the 4^th and 5^th respondents in any manner. Such exercise shall be done by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶24

//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Chairman, (TANGEDCO)
The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,(TANGEDCO),
The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Ltd., Krishnagiri District.
3. The Assistant Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance)
TANGEDCO) The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,Surjabura Road, Bagalur Town and Post,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District – 635 103
+1cc to Mr.J.Jaseem Mohamed , Advocate SR.No.8915
+1cc to Mr.M.v.Krishnan, Advocate SR.No.9311
+1cc to Mr.M.Varun Kumar, Advocate SR.No.9880

¶25

W.P.No.9152 of 2017

¶26

GN(12/02/2018)

¶27

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

Kaveriamma @ Kavamma v. The Chairman (Tangedco)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaveriamma @ Kavamma v. The Chairman (Tangedco)

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. Parvathiammal Vs The Superintending Engineer

M.Dinesh, Vs Foreign Regional Registration

L.Rukmani Vs The Inspector General of

M/s. Maruthi Construction Vs The Secretary

M.Kumar, Proprietor Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Consolidated Construction Vs State of TamilNadu