Dismissed

Mrs. Abidabi, v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC25 Sept 2020WP/13755/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as abated because the sole petitioner died before the conclusion of proceedings and no legal representatives were brought on record. Liberty was granted to the heirs to file a fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as abated. Liberty granted to legal representatives to file a fresh petition with notice to interested parties.

Mrs. Abidabi, Vs the Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.13755 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶6

Abidabi ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Superintending Engineer, TANGED, Villupuram Distribution Circle, Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk, Villupuram District – 605 602.

¶8

The Junior Engineer, TANGED, Villupuram Distribution Circle, Gramam/South, Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk, Villupuram District – 605 602.

¶9

Munusamy ...Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to disconnect and cancel the electricity connection in S.No.1119 in Old Patta No.123/New Patta No.37 in Survey No.278/11A, Singapore Nagar, Villupuram forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Kala For Respondents : Mr.M.Varun Kumar, Standing Counsel – TNEB (R1 & R2) Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan (R3)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Ms.S.Kala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sole petitioner had died long back, however, no steps have been taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, hence, the Writ Petition may be dismissed as abated. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be given to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner to give a fresh representation to the respondents 1 and 2 and in such case, the respondents 1 and 2 may consider the same.

¶14

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

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection for giving such liberty.

¶16

3.Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated. However, it is open to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner to give a fresh representation to the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents may consider the same in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGED, Villupuram Distribution Circle,
Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District – 605 602.
2. The Junior Engineer,
TANGED, Villupuram Distribution Circle,
Gramam/South,
Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District – 605 602.
+1cc to Mr.M.Varun Kumar, Advocate in SR.NO..31618

¶18

W.P.No.13755 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 NMI(CO) RV(19/10/2020)

¶19

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

Mrs. Abidabi, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Abidabi, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadevan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

S.Kaliya Perumal, Vs the District Registrar

A. Anandhan, Vs The District Collector

K.Kamala, Vs the Inspector of Panchayat and

Rani Ammal, Vs The Sub Registrar

D.Selvaraj, Vs The District Collector