Allowed

Bongarala Chandravathi v. Bongarala Venkata Kedarnath

Madras HC18 Jul 2023REV.APLW/66/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an earlier order and directed the restoration of an electricity service connection in its original position. It also ordered both the review petitioner and the writ petitioner to pay all outstanding electricity dues to the Electricity Board forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was allowed; the service connection restored in original position within two weeks; parties directed to pay all dues forthwith.

Bongarala Chandravathi Vs Bongarala Venkata… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Rev.Appln No. 66 of 2023 in W.P No.9113 of 2023

¶7

Bongarala Chandravathi

¶8

..Review Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Bogarala Venkata Kedaranath

¶11

The Superintending Engineer MP & ORS, Electricity Department, Puducherry.

¶12

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Yanam.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w.Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code to allow the review and set aside the order dated 28.03.2023 made in W.P.no.9113 of 2023.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu For Respondents : Mr.A.Tamilvanan AGP(P) RR2 and 3 Mr.V.V.Sairam R1

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This review application has been filed seeking to review the order

¶18

dated 28.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.9113 of 2023 and allow the Review

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

¶21

Petition. This Court, after elaborately hearing the learned counsel on both sides,

¶22

passed an order, on merits, disposing of the writ petition, by order dated 28.03.2023.

¶23

On 28.03.2023, this Court disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.9113 of 2023 directed the petitioner to pay the entire current consumption charges of Rs.9,781/- and directed him to open the main gate to normalise the position of the entrance in the ground floor so as to enable the respondents to restore the service connection in his favour.

¶24

It was the grievance of the writ petitioner that initially the second respondent electricity board issued a notice to the review petitioner to shift the meter from first floor to ground floor. Pursuant to which, the writ petitioner has shifted the meter from first floor to ground floor. Later, the very same respondent taken U turn and directed the petitioner to shift the meter from ground floor to first floor, which is non-est in law.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

¶28

On a perusal of records, it is seen that the writ petitioner is the younger son of the review petitioner. The entire properties stand in the name of review petitioner, in which, the writ petitioner and his elder brother stayed along with his mother in different portion in the same building. Admittedly there was a dispute between the family members. It is also equally undisputed fact that the review petitioner and her elder son are residing in the southern side of the house, whereas the writ petitioner/younger son is residing in the northern side of the same house. Admittedly, there was several meters erected in the said property. The disputed Service connection bearing No.3993A2 has been erected in the first floor, which was shifted to the ground floor. Thereby, the review petitioner could not get electricity connection for first floor south portion. Hence, the present review petition has been filed.

¶29

It is came to know that all the service connection stand in the name

¶30

of the review petitioner. However, the action of the writ petitioner is contrary to the rules and regulations. At this stage, the review petitioner wants to normalise the disputed meter, but, the writ petitioner has prevented to do so.

¶31

In such view of the matter, the earlier order in W.P.No.9113 of

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

¶34

2023 dated 28.03.2023 is hereby recalled and there shall be a direction to the respondents to restore the service connection in its original position within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after receipt of the dues from the review petitioner and the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner and the review petitioner are directed to pay the entire dues to the Electricity Board forthwith.

¶35

With the above direction, the Review Petition is disposed of. No

¶36

costs.

¶37

18.07.2023

¶38

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rli

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

¶41

¶42

The Superintending Engineer MP & ORS, Electricity Department, Puducherry.

¶43

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Yanam.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

rli

Rev.Appln No. 66 of 2023 in W.P No.9113 of 2023

¶49

18.07.2023

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bongarala Chandravathi v. Bongarala Venkata Kedarnath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bongarala Chandravathi v. Bongarala Venkata Kedarnath

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

Sathish Vs State Rep.by

The Management, H.H.619 Vs M.Vasudevan

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer

The General Manager Vs The Division Secretary

The General Manager Vs The Division Secretary

M/s.Perfect Vending India Vs The Assistant Provident Fund