Disposed

M.Mohanraj v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC2 Aug 2019WP/17803/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2019, the petitioner challenged an electricity service connection granted to respondents 4 and 5, alleging fraudulent acquisition of documents. The Court directed the respondents to appear and submit relevant documents within 7 days before passing appropriate orders, then disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Respondents 4 and 5 directed to appear before the Board/3rd respondent and submit relevant documents within 7 days.

M.Mohanraj Vs The Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 02.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019

¶6

M.Mohanraj ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Executive Engineer, Chengalpet Electricity Distribution System, TANGEDCO, Chengalpet. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Chengalpet Electricity Distribution System, TANGEDCO, Chengalpet. 3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thirukazhikundram. 4.Amsa 5.Balu @ Balakrishan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disconnect the electricity service connection given to the respondents 4 and 5 in respect of the property bearing Door No.3/303, Chokkammal Koil Street, Thirukazhikundram, Kancheepuram District pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2019.

¶7

For petitioner : Mr.A.Damodaran

¶8

For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshwar Standing counsel for R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for R4 & R5 O R D E R

¶9

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disconnect the electricity service connection given to the respondents 4 and 5

¶10

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

¶11

in respect of the property bearing Door No.3/303, Chokkammal Koil Street, Thirukazhikundram, Kancheepuram District

¶12

After notice, the respondents 1 to 3 have appeared through his counsel and filed counter. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 filed vakalat, entered appearance and not filed counter.

¶13

The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 4 and 5 have fraudulently obtained service connection for Door No.3/303, Chokkammal Koil Street, Thirukazhikundram, Kancheepuram District, by producing documents which are not connected with the property.

¶14

Whereas, in the counter filed by the respondents 1 to 3 who have given the service connection to the respondents 4 and 5 on 29.01.2008 submits that the land being a Grama Natham, the respondents 4 & 5 have produced the tax receipts and other relevant documents necessary to give service connection. Therefore, the service connection provided to them on 29.01.2008. After receiving the representation of the petitioner on 22.04.2019, the Electricity Board communicated reply letter on 30.04.2019 to the petitioner seeking to produce present revenue records holding in his name. The petitioner has produced the documents on 13.05.2019 and thereafter, the 4^th respondent was directed to produce documents in her possession regarding the title of the property to the letter sent on 21.06.2019. The 4^th respondent has so far not given her reply.

¶15

It is further submitted by the respondents 1 to 3 that the said dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent regarding the title of the property at present out of 5 cents of land, the petitioner is holding 2.5 cents and the 4^th respondent is in possession of 2.5 cents. The petitioner having separate house and having separate service connection, it was also transferred in his name from the erstwhile owners name.

¶16

The petitioner has produced patta document transferred in the name of Mohanraj, S/o.Manoharan and it was obtained on 15.02.2009 and as per the seal and signature of the VAO and Revenue Authorities for Survey No.67/42, old Survey No.67/19. However, the petitioner in his affidavit has stated that he has purchased the property only in the year 2015, whereas the service connection to the 4^th respondent has been given based on the patta No.63 issued in the year 2013 and in view of the materials submitted by the petitioner herein, the matter under consideration on the representation of the petitioner and the authority will pass appropriate orders after scrutinizing the documents.

¶17

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

¶18

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that despite notice served on the 4^th respondent by the 3^rd respondent for appearance and participate in the enquiry, the 4^th respondent has not attended the enquiry. Therefore, an opportunity is given to the 4^th and 5^th respondents to appear before the Board/3^rd respondent and submit relevant documents within a period of 7 days from today. On receiving the same, appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶19

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1.The Executive Engineer,
Chengalpet Electricity Distribution System,
TANGEDCO, Chengalpet.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Chengalpet Electricity Distribution System,
TANGEDCO, Chengalpet.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Thirukazhikundram.
+1cc to Mr.A.Damodaran, Advocate SR.No.66376
+1cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate SR.No.66563
+1cc to Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, Advocate SR.No.66515

¶21

Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019

¶22

NMI(CO) GMY(26/08/2019)

¶23

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

M.Mohanraj v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mohanraj v. The Executive 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

Ranganayaki Vs The Member Secretary

K.P.Velu, Vs The Election Commissioner

V.Revathi, Vs The Secretary

P.Shanmugham Vs Superintending Engineer

E.Boopalan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

C.Govindaraju Vs State of Tamil Nadu