Dismissed

N.K.Kandaswamy v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC9 Jul 2019WP/13987/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a confirmation order by the Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle. The court held that since the petitioner had paid the entire civil liability including compounding charges, no further adjudication was required.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

N.K.Kandaswamy Vs the Superintending Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.07.2019

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

W.P.13987 of 2007 and M.P. 2 of 2007

¶5

N.K.Kandaswamy ... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, 948, E.V.N.Road, Erode-638 009.

¶8

The Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perundurai,

¶9

Erode District.

¶10

The Asst. Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle,

¶11

S.M.Palayam Post, Kunnathur,

¶12

Erode Dt.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the 1^st respondent in May.Pa.Po/E/VuSePo/Po.May/Pithavu/Ko.Thani/Aa. No.52-1/2007 dated 23.03.2007 confirming the orders of the 2^nd respondent in Se.Po/E.Pay/Peru/E.Mi.Po.Aaivu/No.1157-1/2006 dated 25.10.2006 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.N.Amarnath

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar Standing Counsel for R1 & R3

¶17

Mr.Ravi Bharathi for R2 O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 1^st respondent dated 23.03.2007 confirming the order of 2^nd respondent dated 25.10.2006 and quash the same.

¶19

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

¶20

The learned standing counsel appearing for the

¶21

respondents Board would submit that apart from paying the compounding fee, the petitioner has also paid the entire civil liability and to that extent, he has filed the counter affidavit.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not

¶23

dispute the fact submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents board.

¶24

In view of the fact that the petitioner has paid the entire civil liability including the compounding charges, there is no further adjudication is required in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

rpp

¶30

¶31

The Superintending Engineer,

¶32

Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, 948, E.V.N.Road, Erode-638 009.

¶33

The Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perundurai,

¶34

Erode District.

¶35

The Asst. Executive Engineer, O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, S.M.Palayam Post, Kunnathur,

¶36

Erode Dt.

¶37

W.P. 13987 of 2007 and M.P. 2 of 2007

¶38

VG I(CO)

¶39

RRS(28/08/2019)

¶40

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

N.K.Kandaswamy v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.K.Kandaswamy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugan Vs Manickavasagam

M.Wahitha, 43, Dharmalingam Vs the Regional Transport

S.J.L.T. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt. of India

M/S.Aishtma Educational Trust Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Shrikanthan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Padma Mines and Mineral Vs the Principal Secretary/