Disposed

K.Mahalingam v. Sekar

Madras HC23 Oct 2019CONT P/1528/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding non-compliance of an order directing the provision of electricity service, the Court found no wilful disobedience. The respondents were directed to provide the service connection upon receipt of necessary documents clarifying land title.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce necessary documents for title clarification; respondents directed to provide service connection at the earliest upon receipt.

K.Mahalingam Vs Sekar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CONT.P.No.1528 of 2019 and Sub.Appl.No.379 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 23.10.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

CONT.P.No.1528 of 2019
and
Sub.Appl.No.379 of 2019
K.Mahalingam ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Mr.Sekar,
The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sriperumbudur
2. Mr.Murugan,
The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sriperumbudur ... Respondents
Contempt petition filed under section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act,1971, to punish the respondents for
wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated
27.04.2018 in W.P.No.10723 of 2018.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, Standing Counsel

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner that the order of this Court dated 27.04.2018 passed in

¶10

W.P.No.10723 of 2018 has not been complied by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

¶12

CONT.P.No.1528 of 2019 and

¶13

Sub.Appl.No.379 of 2019

¶14

respondents.

¶15

The sum and substance of the order passed by this Court is to consider the application of the petitioner for providing electricity service on payment of the arrears.

¶16

The allegation in the Contempt Petition is that the

¶17

said order has not been complied by the respondents,

¶18

whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents earlier, submitted a communication dated 27.09.2019 directing the petitioner to produce revenue records for

¶19

considering the application and if the same is submitted by the petitioner the request for fresh service will be considered.

¶20

It is now stated that the petitioner has submitted

¶21

the application along with rental agreement. The rental

¶22

agreement indicates that the land belongs to the Temple (Ramanujadas Trust). Hence, clarification has been sought by the respondents from the petitioner regarding the title of the land.

¶23

In such circumstances, this Court finds that there

¶24

is no wilful contempt of the order of this Court on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ part of the respondents. If the petitioner is furnished all

¶25

¶26

CONT.P.No.1528 of 2019 and Sub.Appl.No.379 of 2019

¶27

the documents necessary, the respondents are directed to provide the service connection at the earliest. Recording the same, this Contempt Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Sub Application is closed.

¶28

SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
nvi
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25 th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
Smi/12/11/2019
To
1.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sriperumbudur
2.The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sriperumbudur

¶29

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

¶30

K.Mahalingam v. Sekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mahalingam v. Sekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumili Village Adi Dravidar Vs The Secretary to Government

Ramakrishnan Vs The Special Deputy Collector

S.Charles Manickaraj Vs M/s.Green Home Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Saridha Vs The Registrar

R,Bhuvaneswari Vs J.Ragupathi

N.Santhikumari. Vs the Thahsildar of Ponneri