Allowed

M.Masanam, v. the Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC2 Nov 2020WP(MD)/10748/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus directing state electricity officials to grant free agricultural electricity connection. The court held that the rival boards define eligibility and directed the second respondent to process the pending application on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondent to be directed to consider the petitioner's application for free agricultural electricity service connection and pass a final order on merits within eight weeks.

M.Masanam, Vs the Superintendent Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10748 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.11.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.(MD)No.10748 of 2019

¶5

M.Maasanam : Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Superintendent Engineer,

¶8

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Sivagangai Electricity Distribution Circle, Sivagangai.

¶9

2.The Executive Engineer (Distribution),

¶10

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Sivagangai Electricity Distribution Circle, Sivagangai.

¶11

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District.

¶12

4.The Assistant Engineer (Rural), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District. : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide agricultural electricity service connection to the petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.92/2 bearing Patta No.816, measuring about 0.45.5 hectares situated at Katchathanallur Village and Group, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District based on the communication of the 2^nd respondent dated 17.07.2010 and 1^st respondent dated 09.10.2012 in the light of petitioner's application dated 23.07.1992 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan For Respondents :Mrs.M.Rajeshwari for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha ****

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(This petition was heard through the Video Conferencing)

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide agricultural electricity service connection to the petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.92/2 bearing Patta No.816, measuring about 0.45.5 hectares situated at Katchathanallur Village and Group, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District based on the communication of the 2^nd respondent, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 17.07.2010 and 1^st respondent, dated 09.10.2012 in the light of petitioner's application, dated 23.07.1992 within a time frame as

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.10748 of 2019

¶19

fixed by this Court.

¶20

2.Heard Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.M.Rajeshwari, learned Counsel for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶21

3.The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the aforementioned agricultural land and that he had applied for free electricity service connection with the respondents on 23.07.1992. It is his case that till date, the respondents have not granted free electricity service connection to his agricultural land. In such circumstances, he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶22

4.Mrs.M.Rajeshwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that if the petitioner satisfies all the requirements of the respondents, the respondents are ready to consider the petitioner's application for free electricity service connection for his agricultural lands referred to supra. It is her case that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements and that is the reason for not considering the petitioner's application for free electricity service connection.

¶23

5.No useful purpose will be served, if this Writ Petition is continued to be kept pending. It is for the respondents to decide whether the petitioner is entitled for free electricity service connection or not. While deciding the same, the respondents will have to consider the request of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

6.For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application, dated 23.07.1992 requesting for free electricity service connection for his agricultural land comprised in Survey No.92/2 bearing Patta No.816, measuring about 0.45.5 hectares situated at Katchathanallur Village and Group, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and pass final orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

7.With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.10748 of 2019

¶30

cmr To

¶31

1.The Superintendent Engineer,

¶32

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Sivagangai Electricity Distribution Circle, Sivagangai.

¶33

2.The Executive Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Sivagangai Electricity Distribution Circle, Sivagangai.

¶34

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District.

¶35

4.The Assistant Engineer (Rural), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District.

¶36

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.10748 of 2019 02.11.2020

¶37

pu(CO) KK(10.11.2020) 3 P 5C

¶38

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

M.Masanam, v. the Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Masanam, v. the 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

Meyyappan Vs the Tahsildar

Muthusivasubramanian Vs the Government of India

D.Sunil Vs the District Collector

M/S.Patwari Clothing Pvt., Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs

S.Sridhar, S/O.Sankaran, Vs the Chief Engineer

N. Devaraj Vs the Regional Director of