Disposed

Ponnusamy v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC5 Mar 2021WP/27164/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Mamadiam Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu General Corporation employees to process a petitioner's application for agricultural electricity connection within three months, considering his NOC under G.O.Ms.No.192 of 2012, and informing the petitioner if the old 1965 order applies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners application to be processed within three months; connection granted without delay if NOC under 2012 order is valid; otherwise, reasons under 1965 order to be provided.

Ponnusamy Vs The Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.27164 of 2017

¶6

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶7

Ponnusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Executive Engineer (O and M),
TANGEDCO,
Pookollai Road, Mannarkudi Town,
Nagapattinam District.
2. The Junior Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Vadapathymangalam,
Needamangalm, Thiruvarur. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to forthwith consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of agricultural electricity service connection by accepting the No Objection Certificate already submitted on the basis of representation dated 08.09.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunaraj

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of agricultural electricity service connection by accepting the “No Objection Certificate” already submitted by him on the basis of representation dated 08.09.2017.

¶11

The petitioner had filed an application dated 25.05.2010 for electricity connection for his agricultural land. An inspection was conducted by the respondents. The first respondent, thereafter, by a letter dated 28.06.2010, directed the petitioner to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner obtained a “No Objection Certificate” from the Executive Engineer, P.W.D on 14.12.2012.

¶12

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

¶13

However, the application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner should have obtained “No Objection Certificate” in terms the G.O.Ms.No.1941, Public Works Department, dated 07.07.1965, but the petitioner obtained the same in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.192, Public Works Department, dated 25.07.2012.

¶14

The petitioner thereafter sent a representation dated 08.09.2017 to consider his application for grant of electricity connection to his agricultural land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had not provided the electricity connection though 11 years have been lapsed since the application was originally filed for the electricity connection to petitioner's agricultural land.

¶15

Though the learned counsel for the respondents defends the conduct of respondent by stating that the petitioner is required to obtain “No Objection Certificate” in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.1941, Public Works Department, dated 07.07.1965, copy of the same is not available. No counter has been filed.

¶16

In any event, the application has to be processed in accordance with law. The respondents are therefore directed to process the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and communicate the same to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is entitled for electricity connection based on the “No Objection Certificate” obtained in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.192, Public Works Department, dated 25.07.2012, such connection may be granted to the petitioner without further delay. If the respondents cannot process the application with the No Objection Certificate obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner may be informed about the same along with the copy of the said G.O.Ms.No.1941, Public Works Department, dated 07.07.1965. This exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No cost.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

jen

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Executive Engineer (O and M), TANGEDCO, Pookollai Road, Mannarkudi Town, Nagapattinam District.

¶24

The Junior Engineer, TANGEDCO, Vadapathymangalam, Needamangalm, Thiruvarur. +1cc to Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.14745. W.P.No.27164 of 2017

¶25

PMK(CO) CSR 01.04.2021

¶26

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

Ponnusamy v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnusamy v. The Executive 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

M/s.Adyar Gate Hotal Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/S. United Spirits Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commissioner(Ct)-I

K.Jagadeesan Vs The Commissioner

Munusamy Vs S.Abeeth Hussain

A.Rajasekar Vs The Commissioner

A.v.Lakshmanan, Vs The District Registrar of