Dismissed

B.C.Vijayalakshmi, v. Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC26 Aug 2020WP/29305/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by a displaced homeowner seeking a stay on electricity supply to an unauthorizedly constructed building. The petition was rejected because the power authorities had never granted a service connection to the disputed property, rendering the claim non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

B.C.Vijayalakshmi, Vs Superintendent Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.08.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.29305 of 2013

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

B.C.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1.The Superintendent Engineer,
Thiruvallur TNEB,
TANGEDCO, Thiruvallur.
2.The Junior Engineer,
SS/TNEB/KEDC,
Uthukotai Town Division,
Uthukotai – 602 026.
3.R.Palani ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 restraining them from giving electricity supply to the unauthorized and unlawfully constructed incomplete building belonging to the 3^rd respondent in Survey No.512/3B in Nagalapuram Road, Uthukotai Town, Thiruvallur District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chairman Selvaraj – no appearance

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.P.Gunaraj, Standing Counsel - TNEB – R1 & R2 Mr.P.Dhananjayan (R3)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Today also the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to make his submission through Video Conferencing.

¶14

2.Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that no service connection has been given in S.F.No.512/3B and service connection has been effected only in S.F.No.512/3A1A.

¶15

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

¶16

3.Since the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition only in respect of S.F.No.512/3B, in view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 has also produced the letter of the Assistant Engineer dated 13.08.2020 to that effect.

¶17

4.For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The Superintendent Engineer,
Thiruvallur TNEB,
TANGEDCO, Thiruvallur.
2.The Junior Engineer,
SS/TNEB/KEDC,
Uthukotai Town Division,
Uthukotai – 602 026.
W.P.No.29305 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
SR(CO)
SP(12/10/2020)

¶19

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

B.C.Vijayalakshmi, v. Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.C.Vijayalakshmi, v. Superintendent 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

K.P.Hemalatha, Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries

M/S.Saratha Blue Metal Vs the Assistant Engineer

M.E. Gowri Sankar Vs the Inspector General

Mrs.v.Rajamani Vs the Assistant Engineer

N.Murugan Vs the Chief Administrate

M.Samratbegum Vs the Inspector General of