Disposed

Sangu Soodamani, v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC6 Jul 2021WP/33671/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought a service connection for agricultural land. Respondents claimed a third-party ownership dispute. The court halted the process to allow the petitioner to submit records for a service hearing before any final decision.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to submit records to the Assistant Engineer to facilitate a decision on the service connection application.

Sangu Soodamani, Vs the Superintending… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No. 33671 of 2012

¶6

Sangu Soodamani, ..Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Company, Cappaer Hills, Cuddalore, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶9

2.The Executive Engineer, (O & M) Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Company, Riverside Street, Cuddalore, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶10

3.The Assistant Engineer, (O & M) Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Company, S.Pudur Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶11

4.Gunasekaran, S/o Vellakkannu,

¶12

Vandikuppam, Hamlet of Ramapuram,

¶13

Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District. ..Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records and quash the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in his Kadi. Enn. Se.Po/O&M/Kada/Thonu U1 /Ko. Vi/A No.1001/2012 dated 16.06.2012 and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to effect agricultural electricity service connection to the petitioner for the bore laid in new S.No.126/8 Hec. 0.07.0 = old S.No.257/7 Ac. 0.20 in Ramapuram (Vandikuppam) Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar

¶17

For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr.M.Varun Kumar Standing Counsel TNEB Respondent No.4 : Mr.R.Subramanian

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the Respondents 1 to 3 to effect agricultural electricity service connection to the petitioner's land comprising in new Survey No.126/8 Hec. 0.07.0, Old S.No.257/7 Ac. 0.20 in Ramapuram (Vandikuppam) Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property bearing old survey no.257/7, measuring 0.20 Ac, new survey no. 126/8 measuring 0.07.0 Hec situate in Ramapuram (Vandikuppam) Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District belongs to one Navammal under registered sale deed dated 07.12.1951. The said Navammal died leaving behind her two daughters namely Rajavalli and Radha. The 2^nd daughter and her husband are no more. Rajavalli and Radha's issues sold the aforesaid property to the petitioner's father-in-law namely Rangasami Padayachi under a registered sale deed dated 02.03.1977. On her death, her daughters were in possession. Subsequently, petitioner's father-in-law was in possession of the said land and the patta stood in the name of petitioner's father-in-law. After the death of the petitioner's father-inlaw, the petitioner's husband being legal heir, had sold the said property to the petitioner's son, Patta also transferred in his name and he was in possession of the aforesaid property.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's son submitted an application before the 3^rd respondent on 29.03.2011 for providing agricultural electricity service connection for the aforesaid property. Unfortunately, the petitioner's son died, leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. Hence, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to provide electricity service connection for the representation dated 29.03.2011 submitted by his son.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent board has submitted that the 2^nd respondent board had passed an order dated 16.06.2021, informing the petitioner that the 4^th respondent herein is claiming the

¶24

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

¶25

aforesaid property and objected for providing electricity connection to the petitioner.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent has

¶27

submitted that he has no instructions from the 4^th respondent.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

¶29

the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions;

¶30

i. Writ Petitioner shall approach the 3^rd respondent along with the copy of the representation dated 29.03.2011 along with relevant records within period of one week from the date of the receipt of the order.

¶31

ii.On receipt of the same, the 3^rd respondent on satisfaction of the documents, shall take appropriate decision to effect the service connection to the petitioner's premises, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶32

With the above directions, the writ petition stands

¶33

disposed of. No costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

¶40

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Company, Cappaer Hills, Cuddalore, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶41

2.The Executive Engineer,

¶42

(O & M) Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Company, Riverside Street, Cuddalore, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶43

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

¶44

3.The Assistant Engineer, (O & M) Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Company, S.Pudur Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶45

+1cc to M/s.R.Subramanian, Advocate (SR No.31517)

¶46

+1cc to M/s.D.Baskar, Advocate (SR No.31629)

¶47

W.P.No. 33671 of 2012

¶48

CP (CO) PR (03/08/2021)

¶49

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

Sangu Soodamani, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangu Soodamani, v. the Superintending 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.Arumuga jothi Vs The Principal

P.Palanisamy, Vs the Regional Transport

T.Mohan Vs The Chairman

C.Karthikeyan Vs The Vice Chancellor

K.Aravazhi Vs The Registrar cum Chairman

Valliammai Society Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and