Disposed

K.Palanivel v. Assistant Engineer O & M

Madras HC8 Nov 2019WP/21145/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged a notice seeking title documents by a power utility, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The court observed the petitioner enjoyed the connection since 1994 and paid charges. The respondent confirmed they would not disconnect the supply, leading to the petition's disposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs on the basis that the respondent would not disconnect the supply.

K.Palanivel Vs Assistant Engineer O & M — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA

¶5

Writ Petition No.21145 of 2013

¶6

K.Palanivel ... Petitioner
Vs
Assistant Engineer, O&M,
Paadi, O & M
CEDC/West, 230 KVA,
SS Complex, Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondent in KA.No.VUPO/E&PA/PAADI/KO KATTU/KA.No.113/2013
dated 10.07.2013 and quash the same as illegal without
jurisdiction and non-est in law and consequently, forbear the
respondent from interfering with the petitioner right to avail
basic amenities of electricity service in Service Connection
bearing No.039/022/2471.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vijay
For Respondent : Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar
O R D E R

¶7

Challenging the correctness of the impugned notice dated 10.07.2013 calling upon the petitioner to submit the title and ownership documents showing that he is the owner of the landin-question to which electricity service connection was provided in Service Connection bearing No.039/022/2471 since a complaint has been given by one Mr.M.Raju, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶8

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the contents of the complaint given by one M.Raju has not been disclosed to the petitioner in the notice, they cannot ask for production of title and ownership documents from the petitioner in respect of the land to which electricity service connection has been given. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to go, it is pleaded.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent after reading paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit stated that since the respondent has made it clear that they are not concerned with the dispute between the petitioner and the said M.Raju for the reason that the petitioner is enjoying the service connection A/c.No. 039/022/2471 from 1994 and so long as the petitioner pays the current consumption charges, the respondent is not inclined to disconnect the supply. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that recording the above, the Writ Petition may be closed.

¶11

In view of the fact that the petitioner is enjoying the Electricity Service Connection No.039/022/2471 from 1994 till date by paying regularly current consumption charges, accepting the stand taken by the respondent in their counter that they are not going to disconnect the electricity service connection of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
The Assistant Engineer, O&M,
Paadi, O & M,
CEDC/West, 230 KVA,
SS Complex, Chennai.

¶13

+1cc to Mr.B.Vijay, Advocate, S.R.No. 93250 +1cc to Mr.P.R.Dilip Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 93244

¶14

W.P.No.21145 of 2013 EV(CO) GN(31/12/2019)

¶15

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

K.Palanivel v. Assistant Engineer O & M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palanivel v. Assistant Engineer O & 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

G.v.Raghavan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Sundaram, Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

A,Venkatachalapathy Vs The Sub Registar

Krishna Modern Rice Mill Vs Muthukrishnan

Salem Constructions, Vs The commissioner

M/S. Cauvery Power Generation Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and