Disposed

V.Subathra v. Executive Engineer

Madras HC3 Jul 2023WP/19419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged unauthorized electricity connection by petitioner's uncle on an inherited property. Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent utility to process the petitioners representation within a week and communicate the decision with supporting documents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to dispose of the representation within a week and communicate the decision to the petitioner along with copies of documents produced.

V.Subathra Vs Executive Engineer — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.19419 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

W.P.No.19419 of 2023

V.Subathra

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Executive Engineer Operation and Management TANGEDCO, Kurinjipadi Cuddalore District

¶11

2.Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO, Sub Station Kurinjipadi Cuddalore District

¶12

3.G.Bashyam ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2023.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.V.Venkataseshaiya TNEB standing counsel for R1 and R2

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.19419 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶21

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that he had inherited a vacant site belonging to his father in which he had put up a two storey building which includes a ground floor and a first floor, that he was provided with electricity connection for the ground floor, but the 3^rd respondent herein who is his paternal uncle, has clandestinely obtained electricity connection for the 1^st floor.

¶22

3.Mr.V.Venkataseshaiya, the learned standing counsel for TNEB, takes notice for the respondent and makes a statement on instructions that electricity connection was given to the respondent based on the property tax receipt that he had produced. Further statement is made that the representation will be disposed of within a week from today.

¶23

4.The said statement of the learned counsel for the respondent is recorded.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.19419 of 2023

¶27

5.The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in limine, with a direction

¶28

to the respondent to dispose of the representation and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner along with copies of such document which the 3^rd respondent has produced before it. No costs.

¶29

03.07.2023

¶30

kas

¶31

Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : yes/no

¶32

¶33

1.Executive Engineer Operation and Management TANGEDCO, Kurinjipadi Cuddalore District

¶34

2.Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO, Sub Station Kurinjipadi Cuddalore District

¶35

3/4

¶36

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

W.P.No.19419 of 2023

N.SESHASAYEE, J. kas

W.P.No.19419 of 2023

03.07.2023

4/4

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

V.Subathra v. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Subathra v. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S. Periappa Gounder Vs Kandasamy Gounder

Pavunu Vs Kannaiya Pillai

V. Ramachandran Vs P. Selvam

M/s.South Madras Gas Agency, Vs The Executive Director

Jai Vigneshwar Vs the Director

S.Thangarasu Vs the Executive Engineer