Dismissed

Vijayakumar v. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Madras HC28 Oct 2021WP/8692/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an electricity board demand was dismissed as nothing survived after the third respondent settled dues and regularized the connection, with regularization left open to respondents upon clearance of amounts by them.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as nothing survives; regularization of service connection left open to respondents subject to payment by third respondent.

Vijayakumar Vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Writ Petition No.8692 of 2020 & WMP Nos.10534, 10535 & 10536 of 2020

¶6

Vijayakumar ...Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

1 The Tamilnadu Electricity Board Rep by its Charmian and Managing Director Anna Salai

¶9

Chennai- 600 002.

¶10

2 Assistant Engineer (O and M) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Kovilambakkam

¶11

Sub Division Kovilambakkam Chennai- 600 129.

¶12

3 P.C.Jayaraman ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dated nil and 15.05.2020 passed the 2nd respondent in Ka.No.Uu.Mi.Po/ E.Pe/ Ko.Pa/ KO/A.No./ 2020 and Ka.No.Uu.Po/ E.pe/ Kovilpakkam / Ko. Complaint / NO. 212/ 20 and consequential demand dated 08.06.2020 of Rs.58 165/- in the TANGEDCO website for LT Service Connection No. 316-028-808 bearing Consumer No. 09316028808 for the premises situated at Door No. 68 1st Floor S.Kolathur Main Road Viduthalai Nagar S.Kolathur Chennai-600 0129 quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murali

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Standing Counsel-for RR 1&2

¶16

Mr.J.Hariharan- for R3

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.05.2020 and the consequential demand made on 08.06.2020, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay a total sum of Rs.2,33,639/-.

¶20

The petitioner was a tenant under the third respondent. The demand was made when the petitioner was running an industry in the subject property. There was a subsequent development that took place which was captured in the order passed by this Court on 21.10.2021 and the same is extracted hereunder.

¶21

“The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3^rd respondent submitted that the petitioner was a tenant in the premises and he had already vacated and handed over possession to the 3^rd respondent. It was further submitted that the entire dues has already been settled to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in February 2021 itself. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that nothing survives in this writ petition.

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents shall take instructions in this regard and report before this Court.

¶23

Post this case under the caption 'for orders' on 25.10.2021. ”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already vacated the premises and handed over possession to the third respondent. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that he has already settled the entire dues to the first and second respondents by means of a cheque dated 03.05.2021 for a sum of Rs.2,48,694/-. The learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that after the payment of the dues, the service connection has also been restored. It was submitted that in view of the stay order granted by this Court on 01.07.2020, the first and second respondents are not able to proceed further to regularize the service connection.

¶25

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent development that has taken place, nothing survives in the present writ petition and it is left open to the first and second respondents to regularize the service connection subject to the condition that the entire amount that is due and payable has been cleared by the third

¶26

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

¶27

respondent.

¶28

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶29

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

KST

¶35

¶36

The Charmian and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai Chennai- 600 002.

¶37

Assistant Engineer (O and M) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Kovilambakkam Sub Division Kovilambakkam Chennai- 600 129.

¶38

+1cc to M/s.K.V.Law Firm, Advocate, S.R.No.55799 +1cc to M/s.L.Jaivenkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.55953 +1cc to M/s.R.Murali, Advocate, S.R.No.56033

¶39

W.P.No.8692 of 2020 & WMP Nos.10534, 10535 & 10536 of 2020

¶40

RGN(CO) RGA(29/11/2021)

¶41

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

Vijayakumar v. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar v. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board

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

D.Paramasivam Vs The Chairman

Jayaram Vs The District Collector

Lalitha Devi Vs the Commissioner

M/s.Rajalakshmi Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chairman

M/s.Rajaguru Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory

Bannari Amman Flour Mill Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission