Allowed

Pudukottai Bar Association v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC6 Dec 2023WP(MD)/17708/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Bar Association should not pay electricity charges for the Assistant Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader offices using the same connection. The respondent must disconnect the shared usage or provide a separate connection within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Disconnect judicial offices from petitioner's connection within two weeks or provide a separate connection; allow petitioner to pay arrears in 12 monthly installments.

Pudukottai Bar Association Vs the Secretary to… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013 and MP(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 & 6628 of 2016

¶7

Pudukottai Bar Association, Rep by its Secretary, V.Arumugam ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Tamil Nadu Government, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶10

2.TANGEDCO, Rep by its Assistant Engineer, Town/North Section, Pudukottai. ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order Vide No.ckpbgh/nfh/efu;/tl/g[J/Bfh:/fl;L/m.vz;.106/13-14, dated 09.10.2013 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Maniyarasu For R1 : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.S.Deenadayalan Standing Counsel

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The demand notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity

¶18

Board in the year 2013 was under challenge in this writ petition.

¶19

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Bar

¶20

Association and the Association was provided with the electricity service connection No.SC.No.C12/20. The grievance of the petitioner is that the electricity consumption charges of the public prosecutor office and the Government pleader office are also added

¶21

in the consumption charges of the petitioner's Association when there is no provision for such inclusion.

¶22

3.The learned standing counsel appearing for

¶23

TANGEDCO has produced a proceedings issued by the Assistant

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013

¶27

Engineer, TANGEDCO, Pudukkottai, dated 12.10.2023, wherein, it was intimated that the electricity consumption charges dues from the petitioner's SC No.113-001-20 has been accumulated to the tune of Rs.18.26 Lakhs and the same has to be settled by the petitioner.

¶28

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶29

5.The petitioner is a bar Association. The electricity

¶30

service connection of the Bar Association has been extended to the Assistant Public Prosecutor office and the Government Pleader office. The Bar Association is not supposed to pay the electricity consumption charges of Assistant Public Prosecutor office and the Government Pleader office. In the event, if the electricity service connection of this petitioner Association has been used for the consumption of electricity for the Assistant Public Prosecutor office and the Government Pleader office, the respondent shall disconnect the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013

¶34

copy of this order and it is upto the TANGEDCO to provide a separate electricity service connection to them or shall make an arrangement with the Court service connection. In respect of arrears of amount due from the petitioner as stated by the respondent TANGEDCO, the petitioner association shall be permitted to pay the arrears amount in twelve equal monthly installments, deducting 10% of the electricity consumption charges as levied by the TANGEDCO, which was used by the Assistant Public Prosecutor office and the Government Pleader office.

¶35

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

08.01.2024

¶37

NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn

¶38

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013

¶40

¶41

1.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶42

2.The Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Southern Railways, Madurai.

¶43

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013

¶45

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶46

vrn

¶47

Order made in W.P(MD)No.17708 of 2013 and MP(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 & 6628 of 2016

¶48

08.01.2024

¶49

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Pudukottai Bar Association v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pudukottai Bar Association v. the Secretary to Government

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

P.M.Abdul Mutalif, Vs the Madurai Corporation

M/S.Aachi Industries, Rep by Vs the Secretary to Government

C.Muthukari, Vs the District Collector

Singai Jinnah Vs the Executive Officer

S.Murugesan, Contractor, Vs the District Collector

N.Ragavan Vs The Asst. Director of Town Panchayat