Partly allowed

Palaniammal v. the Assistant Electricity

Madras HC9 Dec 2021WP/11656/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that electricity service is an essential service not subject to denial on flimsy grounds. Directing the Electricity Board to consider the petitioner's application within eight weeks since the objector no longer opposes.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's request for electricity service connection within eight weeks.

Palaniammal Vs the Assistant Electricity — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09-12-2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WP No.11656 of 2014 And MP No.1 of 2014

Palaniammal

..Petitioner

vs.

1.The Assistant Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Maintenance Division, Mullamparappu, Erode District.

¶10

2.T.Balakrishnan

¶11

(R-2 impleaded vide order of Court dated 09.12.2021 made in MP 2 of 2014 in WP 11656 of 2014)

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in and by his proceeding No. Ka. No.2 AEE/Mu.Pa/Ka. Katu No.398/13-4 dt 24.1.2014 and consequently order passed by the respondent in and by his proceeding Ka. En. U. me.po/E & Pu/Mu.Pa/Va/A/Ka. Katu No.434/13 dt 10.2.2014 and quash the same, and consequently directing the first respondent to give electric service connection to the petitioner i.e. Palaniammal House in Survey No. 375 New S.F. No.361 of 46 Pudhur Village, Avalppondurai Taluk, Erode District without insisting consent letter from the legal heirs of the Thulasimanigounder and legal heir certificate.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Regunathan For Respondent-1 : No Appearance For Respondent-2 : Mr.V.Pavel

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The order of rejection dated 10.02.2014 issued by the first respondent, rejecting the application for providing electricity service connection to the premises of the petitioner, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

2. The petitioner purchased the properties situate in Survey No.375 New S.F.No.361 of 46 Pudhur Village, Avalppondurai Taluk, Erode District. The petitioner submitted an application for providing Electricity service connection to the subject property of the premises.

¶19

3. The second respondent, who is none other than the son of the petitioner, during the relevant point of time, raised an objection. Therefore, the Electricity Service Connection was not provided to the subject property of the premises of the petitioner.

¶20

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent now made a submission that he has no objection for providing Electricity Service Connection in the said premises in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Electricity Service Connection is an essential service and the same cannot be provided on certain flimsy grounds.

¶22

6. In the present case, the second respondent has expressed his opinion that he is not standing in the way of not providing electricity service connection to the petitioner, who is the mother of the second respondent. Thus, the first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for providing Electricity Service Connection if otherwise the petitioner is eligible in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. The abovesaid exercise is directed to be done by the first respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

7. With the abovesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

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

¶29

Svn To

¶30

The Assistant Electricity Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Maintenance Division, Mullamparappu, Erode District. +1cc to Mr.V.Regunathan, Advocate SR. No.65425

¶31

WP No.11656 of 2014

¶32

SV (CO) PR (23/12/2021)

¶33

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

Palaniammal v. the Assistant Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniammal v. the Assistant Electricity

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 Ganesh Plastic Vs The Chairman

Venus Multi Links Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.

R.Thamaraiselvi, Vs The District Collector

Smt.G.Selvi Vs The Zonal Manager

Vairakkalyani Vs the Controller of Examination

Annai Sarojini naidu Wome Self Vs The District Collector