Disposed

C.Raju, v. Tamil nadu Generation and

Madras HC17 Sept 2020WP/18570/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Ampal Gopalapuram Electricity Board to consider a representation for an agricultural electricity connection. Without expressing opinion on merits, the Court directed the 5th respondent to consider the representation and pass orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2016 and pass orders on merits expeditiously.

C.Raju, Vs Tamil nadu Generation and — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.18570 of 2016

C.Raju ...Petitioner

1. The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, rep by its Managing Director, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram. 3. The Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi Villupuram. 4. The Assistant Division & Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thirukovilur, Villupuram.

¶9

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Arakandanallur, Villupuram – 605 752. ...Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant electricity connection in S.F.No.156/7, Kollur Village, Villupuram under the Special Scheme for Agriculture.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sachinvijay for Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr.M.Varun Kumar, Standing Counsel – TNEB

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant electricity

¶14

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

¶15

connection in S.F.No.156/7, Kollur Village, Villupuram under the Special Scheme for Agriculture.

¶16

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he has given an application on 06.04.2016 for electricity connection, however, the 5^th respondent has not considered the same yet.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice to direct the 5^th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2016 and pass orders within a time frame.

¶18

4.Mr.M.Varun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the 5^th respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

¶19

5.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 5^th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2016 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶23

The Managing Director,

¶24

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶25

The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram.

¶26

The Superintendent Engineer,

¶27

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi Villupuram.

¶28

The Assistant Division & Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thirukovilur, Villupuram.

¶29

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

¶30

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Arakandanallur, Villupuram – 605 752.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate in SR.NO..30290

¶32

+1cc to Mr.Varunkumar, Advocate in SR.NO.30677

¶33

W.P.No.18570 of 2016

¶34

pp(co) rv(30/09/2020)

¶35

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

C.Raju, v. Tamil nadu Generation and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Raju, v. Tamil nadu Generation and

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

Sri Kumarappa Seva Sangam, Vs Kadhi and Village Industries

N.Mathivanan Vs the District Collector

M.Thandavarayan, Vs The Inspector General of

A. Arunachalam Vs The District Collector

Kalaiselvi, Vs The Inspector General of

Muniyamma, Vs The Inspector General of