Allowed

P.Kumari v. The Chairman

Madras HC2 Jan 2023WP/20286/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Pondy authorities to remove electric poles erected on the petitioner's property in Puducherry. The petitioners sought removal of poles placed in their land to facilitate an electricity connection application. The Court directed the poles be removed by 31.03.2023.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to remove electric poles from petitioner's property in Puducherry on or before 31.03.2023 by the Assistant Engineer, Puducherry Electricity Department and Commissioner, Oulgar

P.Kumari Vs The Chairman — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.20286 of 2022

¶7

and W.M.P.No.19508 of 2022

P.Kumari

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Annasalai,

¶12

Chennai – 600 002.

¶13

2.The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, Villupuram.

¶14

3.The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kandamangalam, Villupuram District.

¶15

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruchitrambalam Sub Station, Tiruchitrambalam – 605 111.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

5.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, O&M/TANGEDCO, Kottakuppam – 605 104.

¶19

6.The District Collector of Puducherry, Office of the District Collector, Government of Puducherry, Thattanchavady, Vazhudavour Road, Puducherry.

¶20

7.The Superintending Engineer – I, Puducherry Electricity Department, Keerapalayam, Puducherry.

¶21

8.The Assistant Engineer, Puducherry Electricity Department, Kalapet (O&M), Puducherry – 605 014.

¶22

9.The Commissioner, Oulgaret Municipality, Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry – 605 005.

¶23

.. Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st to 5^th respondents to consider and take appropriate action on the petitioner's representations dated 21.06.2022 and 12.07.2022 for removal of the electric poles erected by thim in front of the petitioner's property (North-West corner) on Mathur Road

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

connecting Pillaichavady – Mathur and newly laid Sand Road (pathway) for the layout, belonged to Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.

¶28

For Petitioner .. Mr.Prakash Adiapadam For R1 to R5 .. Ms.Revathy, For Mr.Venkataseshaya For R6 to R9 .. Mr.B.Ramasamy, Additional Government Pleader

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction to the 1^st to 5^th respondents to take necessary action on the representations dated 21.06.2022 and 12.07.2022 given by the petitioner herein.

¶31

2.In the said representations, the petitioner had sought removal of electric poles erected by the 1^st to 5^th respondents, particularly, the 5^th respondent, Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, O&M / TANGEDCO, Kottakuppam, Villupuram District, from the property of the petitioner at Mathur road, which connects Pillaichavady and Mathur and

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

the newly laid sand road for the layout belonging to Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry.

¶35

3.The petitioner is the absolute owner of the vacant plot measuring to an extent of 3,705 sq.ft or 6 Kuzhi and 7 Veesam in R.S.Nos.44/3, 44/4, 44/2, 44/5A and which is further described as Cadastre Nos.1469 1/2/1pt and 1469 2/2/2pt, Puducherry Revenue District, Puducherry Sub-R.D., Oulgaret Municipality, Pillaichavady Revenue Village, Village No.21, Puducherry. This is also evident in the report forwarded by the Oulgaret Municipality, wherein, it had been stated that the site had been inspected by the Deputy Surveyor of Oulgaret Municipality and it had been ascertained that the property of the petitioner, namely, the aforesaid land were situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Puducherry.

¶36

4.The 5^th respondent was requested to give electricity connection to another property, which was situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu. To give that particular electricity connection, the 5^th respondent appears to have erected electric poles in the land, which is in the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Puducherry. Complaining that those

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

electric poles should be removed, particularly, since it had been erected in the land of the petitioner, representations have been given on 21.06.2022 and again on 12.07.2022 seeking removal of the said electric poles.

¶40

5.The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st to 5^th respondents is present. The Additional Government Pleader, Puducherry is present for the 6^th to 9^th respondents.

¶41

6.If it is found as a fact that the electric poles had been erected by the 1^st to 5^th respondents, particularly, the 5^th respondent in the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Puducherry, then the same will have to be necessarily removed. If the 1^st respondent does not come forward to remove the said electric poles, the 8^th respondent, Assistant Engineer, Puducherry Electricity Department, Kalapet (O&M), Puducherry, along with the 9^th respondent, the Commissioner, Oulgaret Municipality, may remove the electric poles and raise the charges for such removal on the 5^th respondent and the 5^th respondent is directed to pay the said removal charges.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

7.Let the individual who seeks electricity connection apply afresh to

¶45

the 5^th respondent and let the 5^th respondent give necessary electricity connection by erecting electric poles within the lands belonging to the State of Tamil Nadu and not encroach on to the lands of the Union Territory of Puducherry.

¶46

8.The aforesaid directions particularly removal of the electric poles are to be complied with by the concerned respondents on or before 31.03.2023.

¶47

9.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No

¶48

costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶49

02.01.2023

¶50

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No smv

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

¶54

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶55

2.The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, TANGEDCO, Villupuram.

¶56

3.The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kandamangalam, Villupuram District.

¶57

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruchitrambalam Sub Station, Tiruchitrambalam – 605 111.

¶58

5.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, O&M/TANGEDCO, Kottakuppam – 605 104.

¶59

6.The District Collector of Puducherry, Office of the District Collector, Government of Puducherry, Thattanchavady, Vazhudavour Road, Puducherry.

¶60

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶61

smv

¶62

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

¶63

¶64

7.The Superintending Engineer – I, Puducherry Electricity Department, Keerapalayam, Puducherry.

¶65

8.The Assistant Engineer, Puducherry Electricity Department, Kalapet (O&M), Puducherry – 605 014.

¶66

9.The Commissioner, Oulgaret Municipality, Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry – 605 005.

¶67

W.P.No.20286 of 2022

¶68

and W.M.P.No.19508 of 2022

¶69

02.01.2023

¶70

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

P.Kumari v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kumari v. The Chairman

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

Mahboob Basha (Died) Vs Butt Road Jumma Masjid Committee

S.Karthi Vs The Registrar

Tuticorin salt and Marine Chemicals Ltd. Vs The Union of India

Anil Kumar Ojha Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

D.Vedarathinam Vs The State of TamilNadu

Juveria Vasim Vs The Secretary