Disposed

Viswanathan v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Madras HC17 Apr 2023WP/2523/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged by cited authorities to consider a representation dated (link)Petition for directions to authorities to consider a representation dated 11.12.2019 regarding the removal of an electricity service connection and pass orders after hearing parties within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after affording personal hearing.

Viswanathan Vs The Chairman and Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.2523 of 2020

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶3

Dated : 17.4.2023

¶4

Coram :

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Writ Petition No.2523 of 2020

Viswanathan

...Petitioner

1.The Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 110/11, K.V.Kadakuthu Sub-Station, Cuddalore District.

¶12

3.The Executive Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kurungipadi.

¶13

4.The Assistant Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gangaikondan, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

¶14

5.Mumtaj Begum

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying

¶17

for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

WP.No.2523 of 2020

¶21

consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2019 seeking to remove the electricity service connection in S.C.No.578.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.Venkata Seshaiya For Respondent-5 : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2019 to remove the electricity service connection in S.C.No.578.

¶25

Mr.S.Shankar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.

¶26

Mr.Venkata Seshaiya, learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents 1 to 4. Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appears for the fifth respondent.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is as follows :

¶28

(i) The petitioner is the owner of the land in S.No.172/15,

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

WP.No.2523 of 2020

¶32

Romapuri Village, Cuddalore District and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The fifth respondent is having land adjoining the patta land of the petitioner. The fifth respondent is having vast extent of land and is also having access to her property through the highway land in S.No.217. Though the fifth respondent encroached the highway land and constructed a building, it was demolished by the Highway Authorities and respondents 3 and 4 disconnected the electricity service connection, however, leaving the service connection in S.C.No.578 belonging to the fifth respondent.

¶33

(ii) Pursuant to that, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 24.8.2019 to respondents 2 to 4 so as to bring to their knowledge the existence of service connection No.578 in the damaged wall of the fifth respondent and called upon them to remove and disconnect the electricity service. However, nothing was forthcoming.

¶34

(iii) Expressing his grievance, the petitioner sent a representation dated 11.12.2019 to respondents 1 to 4 along with photographs. Though the said representation has been received, no action has been taken and the fifth respondent is still using the said electricity service connection. Hence the writ petition.

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

WP.No.2523 of 2020

¶38

Though very many grounds have been raised, the learned

¶39

counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice to direct respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2019 within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶40

On the above contentions, this Court heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶41

Considering the limited nature of the prayer sought for in this writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the issue, directs respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders, if not already disposed of, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

WP.No.2523 of 2020

¶45

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No

¶46

costs.

¶47

17.4.2023

¶48

Index : Yes (or) No Neutral Citation : Yes (or) No

¶49

¶50

1.The Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai.

¶51

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 110/11, K.V.Kadakuthu Sub-Station, Cuddalore District.

¶52

3.The Executive Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kurungipadi.

¶53

4.The Assistant Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gangaikondan, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

¶54

RAP

¶55

5/6

¶56

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

WP.No.2523 of 2020

M.DHANDAPANI,J

RAP

WP.No.2523 of 2020

17.4.2023

6/6

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

Viswanathan v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanathan v. The Chairman and Managing Director

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

R.Ravi Vs The Chairman

Jayasri Vs The Chairman

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vs The Transport Commissioner

Shri Santhosh Meenakshi Textiles P Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission

Lord Balaji Educational & Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Chithra Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board