Disposed

Vadivelan v. The Junior Electrical Engineer

Madras HC11 Feb 2020WP(MD)/2155/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a mandamus for changing the electricity service connection tariff. The court directed the petitioner to submit the application in the prescribed format with fees by 14.02.2020, while the respondents were asked to provide the form.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to approach with application in prescribed format with fees. Directing respondents to furnish form and consider application.

Vadivelan Vs The Junior Electrical Engineer — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2155 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.02.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2155 of 2020

Vadivelan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Junior Electrical Engineer, (Operations and Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District.

¶11

The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to change the service connection tariff in respect of the petitioner property situated at Door No.8/26, Keela Vadampokki Theru, Thiruvidamarudur, Thanjavur District on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 02.12.2019 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For Respondents : M/s.Rajeswari For S.M.S.Johnny Basha, Standing Counsel

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents herein to change the service connection tariff in respect of the petitioner's property on the basis of his representation dated 02.12.2019 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

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

¶18

1/2

¶19

W.P(MD)No.2155 of 2020

¶20

It is stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that there is no application from the petitioner in the prescribed format along with the required fees. However, it is refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that, several times, they have approached the respondents' office, but they have not been given any valid answer.

¶21

Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondents before 14.02.2020 and apply in the prescribed format along with the required fees, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for the respondents are also directed to furnish the petitioner the prescribed form in this regard. On such application, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶22

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Post the matter 'for reporting compliance' on 25.02.2020.

¶23

Assistant Registrar ()

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

sts

¶27

¶28

The Junior Electrical Engineer, (Operations and Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District.

¶29

The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District.

¶30

Order made in W.P(MD)No.2155 of 2020 11.02.2020

¶31

VB(18.02.2020) 2P 3C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Vadivelan v. The Junior Electrical Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadivelan v. The Junior Electrical 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

S. Sivabalan Vs the Commissioner

The Lorry owners Association Vs The TamilNadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep by its

K.Soundarapandiyan Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M. Veerajothi Vs the Director of Drugs Control

T. Leelavathi Vs the District Collector

Muppudathi Vs the District Collector