Allowed

C.P.Arumugam, v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC25 Mar 2019WP(MD)/6559/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking restoration of disconnected electricity connections and a new supply. The court directed respondents to restore connections once the petitioner paid penalty Rs.34,810/ via installments, allowing reset of action on future defaults.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of SC Nos. 886 and 120 and fresh service connection for new house, subject to payment of Rs.34,810/ in 24 installments.

C.P.Arumugam, Vs the Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.6559 of 2018

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)No.6423 of 2016

C.P.Arumugam

... Petitioner

1.The Superintending Engineer Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Karur.

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kulithalai.

¶13

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chinthamanipatty, Karur District.

¶14

4.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chinthamanipatty, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4^th respondent proceedings in impugned letter in f.vz;.ckpngh/,fh/jp/rp.k.gl;o nfh-jdp m.vz;.68/2015-16 ehs; 25.09.2015 and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the respondents to restore the service connection in SC.No.06-054-008-886 chinthamanipatty Sub-Division and the respondents are given the fresh service connection in his new house in Survey No.391/4B, Thargampatty of Kadavoor Taluk.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar Ram

¶18

For R1, 3 and 4 : Ms.Rajeswari for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner was enjoying the service connection vide SC.No.886 for his house in Thargampatty. The petitioner was carrying construction activities behind his house. Instead of obtaining separate temporary connection for facilitating the construction activities, energy was illegally drawn from SC.No.886. This was found out on 05.09.2011 and the petitioner was levied with compensation charges of Rs.34,810/ and the petitioner did not remit the said amount. Therefore, his electricity connection in SC.No.120 in Cheetiyapatti Village was also disconnected. The petitioner wants those two connections to be restored and he wants a new service connection for his new house in Survey No.391/41, Tharagampatty, Kadavoor Taluk.

¶21

2.This Court made it clear that unless the petitioner clears pays the liability, he will not be given the relief sought for. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner would immediately pay the compensation charges of Rs.34,810/- and whatever the interest that accrued thereon will be cleared by him in 24 equal monthly installments. The first installment will commence from 01.05.2019.

¶22

3.Recording the said undertaking given by the writ petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to restore the petition mentioned service connections and also give fresh service connection for his newly constructed house. Restoration of SC.No.886 and SC.No.120 will take place immediately after the compensation charges are remitted. Subject to fulfillment of other formalities, new connection will also be given. If the petitioner commits two successive defaults while remitting the interest amount, it is open for the respondent to take action for disconnecting the service connections.

¶23

4.The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD

¶24

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (CS III)

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶27

ias

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

TO:

¶31

1.The Superintending Engineer Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Karur. 2.The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kulithalai. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chinthamanipatty, Karur District. 4.The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chinthamanipatty, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District. 1CC TO MR. K. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE SR: 56408 DS 4/4/2019 3P/6C

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.6559 of 2018

¶33

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

C.P.Arumugam, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Arumugam, v. the Superintending 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

C.Mangalanatha Durai Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

R.Balachandran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

D.Paul Kirubhakaran, Vs the District Collector

K.Baskaran, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

The Secretary, Vs Sudhakar

Psa Sical Terminals Ltd., Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its