Partly allowed

K.Ramaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 May 2019WP(MD)/11552/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed respondents 5 and 6 (TANGEDCO officials) to consider the petitioner's representations concerning an electricity service connection request for a thatched shed, ensuring both parties heard before passing orders, disposing of the writ petition without expressing merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 5 and 6 directed to consider petitioner's representations dated 22.04.2019 and 01.05.2019, giving opportunity to both parties, and pass appropriate orders.

K.Ramaraj Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 08.05.2019 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶3

Writ Petition (MD)No.11552 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).No.8806 of 2019

¶4

K.Ramraj . . . Petitioner -Vs1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Theni District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Theni District. 3.The Commissioner, Theni Allinagaram Municipality, Theni. 4.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways Authority, Theni, Theni District.

¶5

5.The Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO, Theni.

¶6

6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural East, TANGEDCO, Theni. 7.S.M.Pandi . . . Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 not to provide any electricity service connection to the thatched shed put up by the 7th respondent comprised in Survey No.190 situated at Theni By Pass Road, Allingaram Village, Theni, Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2019 and 01.05.2019.

¶7

For petitioner : Mr.P.Sivachandran

¶8

For respondents : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate for RR-1, 2 and 4 Mrs.Rajeshwari for M/s.S.M.S.Johny Basha

¶9

for RR-5 & 6

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 not to provide any electricity service connection to the thatched shed put up by the 7th respondent comprised in Survey No.190 situated at Theni By Pass Road, Allingaram Village, Theni, Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2019 and 01.05.2019.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Sy.No.190, situated at Theni By Pass Road, Allinagaram village, Theni, Theni District is having an extent of 12 acres 84 cents. The petitioner and the seventh respondents are one of the purchasers of the said survey number. Regarding the said property, there are series of disputes pending before this Court as well as before different forums. On an earlier occasion, one of the neighbours filed an application for electricity service connection and the seventh respondent objected for the same. However, the seventh respondent also filed an application before the Electricity Board for service connection. Objecting the same, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities.

¶15

3.Though the petitioner seeks a larger relief, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 22.04.2019 and 01.05.2019.

¶16

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board have no objection for considering the representations of the petitioner.

¶17

5.Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the respondents 5 and 6 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 22.04.2019 and 01.05.2019, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the seventh respondent, as expeditiously as possible and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶18

6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/ True Copy /

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

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

¶25

VS To 1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Theni District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Theni District. 3.The Commissioner, Theni Allinagaram Municipality Theni. 4.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways Authority, Theni, Theni District. 5.The Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO, Theni. 6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural East, TANGEDCO, Theni.

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.P.SIVACHANDRAN,Advocate(SR-65527[F] dated 09/05/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-65588[F] dated 09/05/2019 )

¶27

W.P.(md).No.11552 of 2019

¶28

ES/20.05.2019/3P/9C

¶29

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

K.Ramaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramaraj v. the District Collector

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

Pandiyammal, Vs the Inspector of Police

Banumathi, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Rasu, Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Sree Karthikeya Timber Vs the State Tax Officer - v

B.Ramamurthy, Vs the Superintending Engineer

R.C.St.Cecilias Middle School Vs the District Collector