Allowed

K.Subramani v. The Chairman

Madras HC4 Jan 2022WP/3960/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, having received a domestic connection since developments were planned, sought a commercial connection. The lower court official refused to accept the application. This Court directed the authorities to consider the application and grant the connection within four weeks if requirements are met.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the application and provide commercial electricity connection within four weeks.

K.Subramani Vs The Chairman — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :04.01.2022

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶5

W.P.No.3960 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.4849 of 2018

K.Subramani

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶10

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Periamet, Sampath Salai, Chennia-600 007.

¶11

Mr.K.Arumugam

¶12

R3 impleaded vide order dated 08.04.2021 made in W.M.P.No.8478 of 2018 in W.P.No.3960 of 2018.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2018 and consequently provide commercial electricity connection to the petitioner to his property at No.27/13, Lalakutty Street, Periamet, Chennai-600 003.

¶15

For Petitioner: M/S.T.R.Udayakumar, No appearance

¶16

For R1 to R2 : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Standing Counsel For R3 : Proof not filed

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2018 and consequently provide commercial electricity connection to the petitioner to his property at No.27/13, Lalakutty Street, Periamet, Chennai600 003.

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing today i.e. on 04.01.2022, none appeared for the petitioner. It is reported that initially, the respondent 1 and 2 have given a domestic electricity service connection to the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has planned to develop a portion of the property, he has applied for commercial electricity connection to his premises. However, the 2^nd respondent-The Assistant Executive Engineer has refused to receive the application from the petitioner without assigning any reason. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶21

Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner has not at all made any application seeking electricity service connection for commercial purpose. However, if at all any application has been made by the petitioner, the same will be considered and provided commercial electricity service connection.

¶22

In view of the above submission made by the respondents 1 and 2, if the petitioner made any application, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the same and provide commercial electricity service connection to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the requirements thereof, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶28

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

¶29

jd To

¶30

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶31

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Periamet, Sampath Salai, Chennai-600 007.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Advocate Sr.568

¶33

W.P.No.3960 of 2018

¶34

and W.M.P.No.4849 of 2018

¶35

nk[cpo] srg 24/01/2022

¶36

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

K.Subramani v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subramani v. The Chairman

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

A. Raju Vs The Regional Officer

Thamizhaga Cable Tv Vs Union of India rep by its

Sheik Ameer, Vs The Collector

G. Kalyana Raman Vs The Central Vigilance

Tamil Nadu Power Producers Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Kovvuri Venkata Ramana Reddy Vs Dgm (Contract Cell), Sro