Disposed

Stalin Kumar v. The Executive Engineer(O and M)

Madras HC23 Jan 2019WP/1061/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging TANGEDCO's notice to disconnect an agricultural electricity connection. Noting undisputed facts versus a disputed claim of agricultural use, the Court directed a field inspection by the executing authority before any disconnection. Pending the inspection, the connection was safeguarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; petitioner directed to submit documents; authority directed to conduct field inspection within 4 weeks; disconnection stayed pending inspection.

Stalin Kumar Vs The Executive Engineer(O and M) — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:23.01.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.1061 of 2019

¶6

and

¶7

MP.Nos.1192 and 1195 of 2019

¶8

Stalin Kumar ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Executive Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Muthukapatti, Senthamangalam Taluk - 637405. Namakkal District. 2.The Assistant Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Muthukapatti, Senthamangalam Taluk - 637405. Namakkal District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication in Ka.No.UMi.Po/O&M/Mu.Ka.Patti/Ko.Vi./A.No.223/18-19 dated 26.12.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and forbear the respondents from interfering with the service connection No.218-010-415 in Survey No.50/1F3, Kondamanaickenpatti Village belonging to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Abar Md.Abdullah

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshwar Standing Counsel.

¶12

The order dated 26.12.2018 issued by the Assistant Engineer / 2nd respondent stating that the Agricultural Service Connection provided in the name of the writ petitioner has not

¶13

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

¶14

been utilized for irrigation purposes. Thus, the connection will be disconnected within a period of 15 days. Challenging the said notice for effecting disconnection, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶15

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is performing agricultural activities in his property for a considerable length of time and the facts set out in the impugned notice are incorrect. To establish the said contention, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner referred page no.49 of the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition showing that the coconut trees are grown in the property shown in the picture.

¶16

However, in the very same typed set of papers filed by the writ petitioner page no.54 is referred by the learned for the respondent showing that the property belongs to the writ petitioner was converted as housing plots and tar road also laid in the said laid out. In other words, a layout has already been formulated and there no agricultural activities are going on in the property belonging to the writ petitioner. Thus, the impugned notice is in accord with the terms and conditions for the continuance of the free Electricity Service Connection for agricultural purposes.

¶17

On account of the disputed facts raised by the parties to the lis on hand, this Court is of an opinion that, the exercise of identifying the fact cannot be undertaken by this Court in the present writ proceedings. All such facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated by the Competent Authorities by conducting a field inspection and by verifying the documents / records available. In view of the fact that, the facts are disputed by the respective parties, this Court is inclined to direct the 1^st respondent/ The Executive Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Muthukappatti, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District to conduct a field inspection personally with reference to the documents in relation to the property belongs to the writ petitioner and accordingly, take a decision and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and all the parties concerned.

¶18

The writ petitioner is also directed to submit the documents relating to the property and other details by way of a written statement enabling the 1^st respondent to conduct field inspection and take a decision. The 1^st respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such an exercise is concluded by the 1^st respondent, the electricity service Connection shall not be disconnected. It is made clear that the 1^st respondent shall decide the usage of free Electricity Service

¶19

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

¶20

Connection in the property with reference to the terms, conditions and regulations of the TANGEDCO and accordingly pass orders.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶23

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Pkn/kmm
To
1.The Executive Engineer (O&M),
TANGEDCO,
Muthukapatti,
Senthamangalam Taluk - 637405.
Namakkal District.
2.The Assistant Engineer (O&M),
TANGEDCO,
Muthukapatti,
Senthamangalam Taluk - 637405.
Namakkal District.
+1cc to Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar, Advocate Sr.5463
W.P.No.1061 of 2019
ev[co]
srg 21/02/2019

¶24

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

Stalin Kumar v. The Executive Engineer(O and M)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stalin Kumar v. The Executive Engineer(O and M)

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

R. Narasimma S/O. Ramanna Vs the District Collector

Ramaraj Vs the Deputy Registrar of

C.Jayapalan Vs the Secretary to Govt

Blue Star Ltd., Vs the Appellate Assistant

Tvl. Prabha Industries Vs the Deputy Commercial

P.Anbalagan Vs the Union of India,Rep by the