Dismissed

R.Ponni, v. The Assistant Engineer

Madras HC14 Nov 2019WP/23458/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order allowing the respondent utility corporation to erect electric poles and lay lines in owned property. The court upheld the order, directing the corporation to proceed within four weeks, subject to the final outcome of the pending land dispute.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the impugned order of the Assistant Engineer is upheld; the respondent is directed to erect the pole and provide electricity supply within four weeks, subject to the

R.Ponni, Vs The Assistant Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on: 11.11.2019 Pronounced on: 14.11.2019

¶3

Coram::

¶4

The Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran

¶5

Writ Petition No.23458 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.27372 of 2018

¶6

R.Ponni, W/o.Raman, Rep. by her Power of Attorney, Mr.Pakirisamy, S/o.Pichaimuthu, Edatheru, Mannarkudi Road, Thiruthuraipoondi, Thiruvarur District. ... Petitioner

¶7

/versus/

¶8

The Assistant Engineer,

¶9

(Operation and Maintenance),

¶10

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Thiruthuraipoondi,

¶11

Thiruvarur District.

¶12

The Commissioner,

¶13

Thiruthuraipoondi Municipality, Thiruthuraipoondi.

¶14

Tmt.A.Kumutham, W/o.Elancheran, Mannai Salai, Thiruthuraipoondi.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

R2 & R3 are impleaded vide order dated 27.04.2019 made in W.M.P.No.29153 of 2019 in W.P.No.23458 of 2018 by TRJ Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified, to call for the records of the respondent letter dated 21.08.2018, Na.Ka.No.Vo.Po/Eya.Pa/Nagar/Thi.Thu.Poo/Koo.objection/ANo.66/201 8-2019 and quash the same and to forbear the respondent from erecting any electric pole and laying electric lines in her property of the punjai land measuring to an extend of 0.13/4 cents comprised in survey No.62/18C and Nanjai land measuring to

¶17

1/4

¶18

an extend of 0.05.2/3 cents comprised in Survey No.62/19B and Punjai Land measuring to an extend of 0.09 cents comprised in Survey No.62/20B situated at Mannarkudi Road Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk Thiruvarur District by the consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 28.08.2018.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivazhagan

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the 1^st & 3^rd Respondents.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that, the 1^st respondent is trying to lay electrical pole and draw electricity cable through a lane owned by him, to provide electricity supply for the 2^nd respondent building which has no building permission.

¶23

Accordingly to the petitioner, the property in S.Nos.62/18 C and 62/19B & 62/20B situated at Mannarkudi Road, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District, is in her peaceful possession and enjoyment. While so, the 2^nd respondent filed O.S.No.122/2011 seeking right of easement of way and injection. The District Munsif Court at Thiruthuraipoondi, allowed the suit against which the petitioner has filed appeal before the SubCourt, Thiruvarur and same is pending as A.S.No.4 of 2018. While so, the 1^st respondent wants to lay electrical pole in the disputed land to provide service connection to the 2^nd respondent. When same was objected through representation, dated 03.05.2018 through Lawyer, same was rejected by the 1^st respondent vide letter dated 21.08.2019. The said letter is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶24

The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that, the dispute between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent regarding the usage of the land though pending, there is no Court order restraining them to provide service connection to the 2^nd respondent. Further, in the impugned order itself the petitioner was informed that they are bound to given service connection to the petitioner in the light of the High Court in W.P.No.12083 of 2013 Dr.Kalavalli Vs. The

¶25

2/4

¶26

Chairman, TNEB, Chennai. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

The 2^nd respondent, in her counter has stated that, the power agent of the petitioner who has filed this Writ Petition on behalf of the Principal is a political heavyweight and trying to grab the common lane by fabricating document. This was subject matter of O.S.No.122 of 2011 and Court has passed decree in favour of the 2^nd respondent. While so, in spite of judicial pronouncement and balance of convenience in her favour the petitioner using his political power trying to stale the process of providing service connection to her.

¶28

The impugned order of the 1^st respondent is self explanatory. The following observation of this Court in W.P.No.12083 of 2013 is extracted by the 1^st respondent in the impugned order.

¶29

“While granting electricity service connection, the electricity department may not be concerned with the suit filed by the respondent claiming the title over the said property”. Since no interim injunction has been granted in favour of the respondent, there cannot be any impediment to grant electricity service connection to the petitioner.

¶30

If anyone has to wait till the disposal of the suit and further appeal thereon, then the electricity service connection cannot be granted for very number of years”

¶31

“In W.A.No.1396 of 2007, dated 15.04.2009 it has been stated that if a lawful occupant is compelled to lead his life in darkness, it would amount to make him lead an animal life, which is not the purport of the constitution.”

¶32

While so, the decision of the 1^st respondent to provide electrical supply through the route decided does not suffer any illegality or irregularity.

¶33

Hence, the order of the 1^st respondent, dated 21.08.2018 is upheld. The 1^st respondent is directed to proceed to erect pole and provide supply of electricity, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this arrangement will be subject to final outcome of the dispute pending between the parties.

¶34

3/4

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

bsm

To,

The Assistant Engineer,

¶42

(Operation and Maintenance),

¶43

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Thiruthuraipoondi,

¶44

Thiruvarur District.

¶45

The Commissioner,

¶46

Thiruthuraipoondi Municipality,

¶47

Thiruthuraipoondi.

¶48

+1 cc to Mr.S.Arivazhagam Advocate sr94781

¶49

+1 cc to Mr.M.Jaikumar Advocate sr94693 +1 cc to Mr.P.Gunaraj Advocate sr94317

¶50

Writ Petition No.23458 of 2018

¶51

aa11/12/2019

¶52

4/4

R.Ponni, v. The Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ponni, v. The Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.N. Satheesh Vs M/s.Alliance Projects

K.Paranthaman Vs Inspector General of Registration

S.Gulzar Begum Vs Inspector of General of

S.Ethiraj Chettiar Vs The District Collector

Womens Centre and Hospitals Vs The Zonal Officer,Mircro&Small

Mrs.D.Vijaya Vs The Union Territory of Puducherry