Disposed

Union of India v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory commission

Madras HC28 Jan 2019WP/1817/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner Union of India sought a direction to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission to expedite the hearing and disposal of a pending application. The Court directed representation and adjudication by the next sitting date.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to represent application within one week; directed respondent to adjudicate and pass orders on merits at next sitting.

Union of India Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.1817 of 2019

¶4

Union of India,

¶5

Represented by its Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer, Office of the Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, Southern Railway, 7^th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai 600 003. ....Petitioner

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

--Vs--

¶8

Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Chairman, No. 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to take the petitioner's application dated 31.08.2018 for hearing and dispose of the same within a fixed period of time.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan

¶11

Asst.Solicitor General of India

¶12

Respondents : Mr.Yogeshwaran.A, SC

¶13

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondent, to take the petitioner's application dated 31.08.2018 for hearing and dispose of the same, within a reasonable period of time.

¶14

The writ petitioner is Union of India represented by its Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer, Office of the Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer. Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the writ petitioner made a submission that on the ground, the delay being caused by the respondent, the Southern Railways is suffering financial crisis about one crore per day. On account of the pendency of the application, huge financial loss is being caused to the Souther Railways, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶15

The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India further informed this Court that the application submitted by the writ petitioner raises sever disputes, which are all to be resolved and accordingly, the grievances are to be redressed. If the

¶16

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

¶17

hearing of the petition itself is not taken, the same would cause great prejudice to the writ petitioner and the same would be against the interest of public at large.

¶18

On notice, Mr.Yogeshwaran.A, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. The learned counsel for the respondent is fair enough to submit that the application submitted by the writ petitioner had already been returned and if it is represented, the said application would be considered within 2 hearings of the Commission. The next hearing of the Commission is fixed on 31.01.2019 and in that hearing it may not be possible for the Commission to consider the application and pass orders. However, during the next date of hearing, the Commission would be in a position to consider the application submitted by the writ petitioner, take a decision and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶19

This being the factum of the case, the writ petitioner is directed to represent the application within a period of one week, from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the application in complete format, the respondent Tamil Nadu Regulatory Commission is directed to adjudicate the matter and pass orders during the next sitting date of the Regulatory Commission and pass order on merits and in accordance with law. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ska To 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Chairman, No. 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 2.The Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer, Union of India, O/o the Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, Southern Railway, 7^th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai-3

¶21

+1cc to Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Advocate, S.R.No.6710

¶22

W.P.No.1817 of 2019 AK(CO) rrs 06/03/2019

¶23

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

Union of India v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory commission

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

Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. Vs Union of India, Rep by

P. Munisamy and Sons, Vs the Government of India, Rep.

V.Venugopal Vs T.N.Slum Clearance Board

R.Kavitha Vijayakumar, Vs The Asst Electric Engineer

M/S.Southern Alloy Foundries Vs the Collector of Chennai

P.Venkatesa Kumar Vs Pondicherry Planning