Disposed

P.Ramalingam, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC30 Mar 2022WP/23576/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal to provide an electricity connection to the petitioner's property. The Court noted the petitioner had died. It directed his legal heirs to submit an application to the electricity department, after which the matter would be disposed of following a statutory opportunity to the housing society respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed legal heirs of the deceased petitioner to apply for electricity service connection within two weeks; directed the Assistant Engineer to consider the application and pass orders within eight w

P.Ramalingam, Vs The Superintendent Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.NO.23576 OF 2014 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2014

¶6

P.Ramalingam ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The Superintendent Engineer, The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶9

Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kanchipuram.

¶10

The Assistant Engineer,

¶11

(Operation and Maintenance), The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kanchipuram.

¶12

Mamallan Housing Building Co-operative Society Ltd., G-2085, A036, Mamallan Nagar, Kanchipuram - 631 502. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:-

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's property situated at Plot No.A-25, Ottakuthar Street, Mamallan Nagar, Kanchipuram at Arapanchery Village, comprised in S.Nos.64 to 73 and 75 to 79 in terms of the payment made by the petitioner as evidenced in the Receipt in Sl.No.KPM 1593749.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Elaya Rajkumar For M/s.Ramalingam and Associates

¶16

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

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel For R1 and R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's property situated at Plot No.A-25, Ottakuthar Street, Mamallan Nagar, Kanchipuram at Arapanchery Village, comprised in S.Nos.64 to 73 and 75 to 79 in terms of the payment made by the petitioner as evidenced in the Receipt in Sl.No.KPM 1593749.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the Plot No.A-25 is part of approved layout developed by the third respondentSociety in Survey Nos.64 to 73 and 74 to 79. The plot was allotted in favour of the petitioner and an agreement was also entered into on 10.02.1965. As such, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He would further state that he had put up a small dwelling house thereon and approached the official respondents for providing service connection. Though originally they agreed, however subsequently due to the objection of the third respondent, service connection was not provided to his property. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner passed away and on instructions, it is stated that so far no electricity service connection is provided to the property of the petitioner. In this regard, I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

Considering the nature of prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, this Court directs the legal heirs of the petitioner to give an application/representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks by enclosing a copy of this order. On such compliance, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the necessary parties including the third respondent herein within a period of eight weeks therefrom.

¶23

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

¶24

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

¶25

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

r n s

¶31

¶32

The Superintendent Engineer, The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kanchipuram.

¶33

The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance), The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd; (TANGEDCO), Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kanchipuram.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.21605

¶35

W.P.NO.23576 OF 2014 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2014

¶36

KK(CO) PBS/19/04/2022

¶37

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

P.Ramalingam, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramalingam, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Palanisamy, Vs the Secretary

K.Kathirvel Vs The Chairman and Managing

P.Narayanan, Vs The Chairman

M/S. Sri MAR4UDHAMALAI Murugan Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity Boar

S.Murugasamy, Vs the Director of Government

V.Ramakrishnan, Vs Assistant Engineer