Dismissed

A.C.Sivakumar, v. The Chairman, (Superintending

Madras HC11 Nov 2020WP/667/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to stop the erection of a transformer on his premises in violation of the Electricity Act and Telegraphic Act. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the respondents had already replied stating they would not erect the transformer at the disputed location.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

A.C.Sivakumar, Vs The Chairman, (Superintending — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.11.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.667 of 2017 and W.M.P. No.718 of 2017

¶6

A.C. Sivakumar

¶7

...Petitioner
v.
1. The Chairman, (Superintending Engineer),
TANGEDCO (TNEB),
No.5A Block, 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chairman, (Superintending Engineer),
TANGEDCO (TNEB),
MGR Salai,
110/33/11KV Valluvar Kottam SS Complex,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
TNEB, O & M,
Esplande.
4. The Assistant Engineer,
TNEB, O & M,
No.181, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents from erecting the transformer at Door No.58/127, Ramasamy Street, Muthyalpet, George Town, Chennai – 600 001 abetting the petitioner's premises against the Electricity Act and Telegraphic Act and directing the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2016.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. F. Terry For Respondents: Mr.P.R.Dhilp Kumar, Standing Counsel

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Mr. F. Terry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous for the reason that the respondents have given a reply dated 27.01.2017 stating that they are not going to erect the transformer in the place in question.

¶13

Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶14

s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar Rj To 1. The Chairman, (Superintending Engineer), TANGEDCO (TNEB), No.5A Block, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Chairman, (Superintending Engineer), TANGEDCO (TNEB), MGR Salai, 110/33/11KV Valluvar Kottam SS Complex, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB, O & M, Esplande. 4. The Assistant Engineer, TNEB, O & M, No.181, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001. +1 CC to Ms.M.Malar, Advocate sr 36805. W.P.No.667 of 2017 and W.M.P. No.718 of 2017 UM(CO) SP(04/12/2020)

¶15

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

A.C.Sivakumar, v. The Chairman, (Superintending

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.C.Sivakumar, v. The Chairman, (Superintending

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.K.Subramaniam, Vs the Sub Collector

Tmt.R. Ranjani Vs the District Revenue Officer

E.Raja, S/O. Elumalai, Vs The Inspector General of

A.Palanisamy Vs The District Collector

T. Thangapushpam Vs The Tahsildar

Mrs.Alamelu, Vs The Chief Controlling