Dismissed

Puliprabakaran, S/O.T.Muthu v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC22 Feb 2023WP(MD)/10268/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an individual seeking a mandamus to restrain the disconnection of an electricity service connection. The service was in the petitioner's brother's name, raising a property dispute without the rival party impleaded. The Court advised pursuing a civil remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to work out remedy before competent civil court.

Puliprabakaran, S/O.T.Muthu Vs the Superintending… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.10268 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.10268 of 2016 and WMP(MD)No.8023 of 2016

Puliprabakaran

... Petitioner

1.The Superintending Engineer,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO),

¶12

Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶13

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance / Rural, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

¶14

3.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Operation & Maintenance / Rural, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

WP(MD)No.10268 of 2016

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 & 3 from disconnecting the electricity service connection (SC.No.141-016-905) issued to the petitioner's aqua water unit namely Sakthi Aqua Farm situated in S.No.81/14, Koothangudi, Kovilvayal Group, Aranthangi Panchayat Union and Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Rahamadullah

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondents from disconnecting the electric service connection in SC.No.141-016-905.

¶24

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service connection stands in the name of the petitioner's brother and taking advantage of the same, the petitioner's brother attempted to disconnect the service connection and therefore, the petitioner has moved this writ petition. He further submitted that this Court, while entertaining the writ petition, has

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD)No.10268 of 2016

¶28

ordered to maintain status-quo and therefore, the service connection has not been disconnected. In the meantime, the petitioner's brother has filed a civil suit before the Sub Court, Pudukottai, in OS.No.302 of 2014 and the same was dismissed.

¶29

3.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Board has also confirmed the same that the service connection has not been disconnected.

¶30

4.It appears that there is some dispute between the petitioner and his brother. The service connection, admittedly, stands in the name of the petitioner's brother, who made certain request to the Board to disconnect the same and therefore, the petitioner has moved this writ petition, however, without impleading his brother as a party.

¶31

5.This Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the competent civil Court by establishing his right in the service 3/4

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD)No.10268 of 2016

¶34

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶35

¶36

connection. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

Index : Yes / No gk

¶38

22.02.2023

¶39

WP(MD)No.10268 of 2016

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

Puliprabakaran, S/O.T.Muthu v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puliprabakaran, S/O.T.Muthu v. the Superintending Engineer

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

M/S.Ragavendra Blue Metal Pvt. Vs M/S.Punjab National Bank

Ramesh Kumar, Vs the Commissioner

Nallathambi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

The Inspector of Police Vs Thiru.M.Pandian

T.Jaishankar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.G.Vajravel, Vs the District Collector