Disposed

Shanmugam v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC8 Nov 2023WP(MD)/5531/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of four writ petitions challenging an order to disconnect electricity supply. The court held that since petitioners are enjoying connections pending an ongoing suit and second appeal, the disconnection notice shall remain in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice to disconnect electricity shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the second appeal.

Shanmugam Vs the Assistant Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)Nos.2, 1, 1 and 1 of 2011

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.5531 of 2011

¶9

Shanmugam

¶10

Chinnaiah

¶11

P.Leelavathi

¶12

P.Muthukrishnan

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

versus

¶15

The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Kannivadi, Dindigul District.

¶16

Sangeetha

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the first respondent or their men or agents from disconnecting the electricity 1/9

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶21

supply in SC No.37 in Alathooranpatti situate in the well in Survey No. 422/4 in Sirangadu Village, Dindigul Taluk and Dindigul District.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 : Mr.Deenadayalan Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.5532 of 2011

¶24

Shanmugam ... Petitioner

¶25

versus

¶26

The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Kannivadi, Dindigul District.

¶27

Sangeetha ... Respondents

¶28

¶29

2/9

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶32

illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently forbear the 1^st respondent or anybody acting through him or claiming under him from disconnecting the electricity connection in S.C.No.1006 in Alathooranpatti to the Door No.2-3-46 in Veerapudayanpatti, Kannivadi Post, Sirangadu Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District standing in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned communication.

¶33

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 : Mr.Deenadayalan Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.5533 of 2011

¶35

P.Chinnaiah ... Petitioner

¶36

versus

¶37

The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Kannivadi, Dindigul District.

¶38

Sangeetha ... Respondents

¶39

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶40

3/9

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶43

seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned communication Ka.No.U.Me.Po./E&Pe/Ka.VaPe/Ko.Kattu/A.No.63/11 dated 17.03.2011 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently forbear the 1^st respondent or anybody acting through him or claiming under him from disconnecting the electricity connection in S.C.No.1041 to the Door No.2-3-47 in Veerapudayanpatti, Kannivadi Post, Sirangadu Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District standing in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned communication.

¶44

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 : Mr.Deenadayalan Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.5534 of 2011

¶46

P.Leelavathi ... Petitioner

¶47

versus

¶48

The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Kannivadi, Dindigul District.

¶49

4/9

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶52

2. Sangeetha

¶53

... Respondents

¶54

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned communication Ka.No.U.Me.Po./E&Pe/Ka.VaPe/Ko.Kattu/A.No.61/10-11 dated 17.03.2011 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently forbear the 1^st respondent or anybody acting through him or claiming under him from disconnecting the electricity connection in S.C.No.1197 in Alathooranpatti to the Door No.2-3-45 in Veerapudayanpatti, Kannivadi Post, Sirangadu Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District standing in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned communication.

¶55

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 : Mr.Deenadayalan Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶56

5/9

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶59

COMMON ORDER

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.5531 of 2011 has been filed for a Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent or his men or agents from disconnecting the electricity supply in SC No.37 in the well situated in Survey No.

¶61

422/4 in Sirangadu Village, Dindigul Taluk and Dindigul District.

¶62

W.P.(MD)Nos.5532 to 5534 of 2011 have been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 17.03.2011 issued by the first respondent and consequently, to forbear the 1^st respondent or anybody acting through him or claiming under him from disconnecting the electricity connection in Door Nos.2-3-45, 2-3-46 and 2-3,47 situated in Veerapudayanpatti, Kannivadi Post, Sirangadu Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District standing in the name of the petitioners on the basis of the impugned communication.

¶63

It appears that the predecessor of the second respondent herein along with others has filed a suit in O.S.No.1721 of 1988 before the II

¶64

6/9

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶67

Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The trial Court, by Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2000, has partly decreed the suit granting the relief of declaration, however, refused to grant the relief of injunction. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in A.S.No.490 of 2004, the Sub Court, Dindigul, by Judgment and Decree dated 17.07.2008, has granted the relief of injunction also. As against the same, some of the defendants have preferred a second appeal before this Court in S.A. (MD)No.119 of 2011. This Court has entertained the second appeal and also ordered notice in second appeal.

¶68

Since the petitioners are enjoying the electricity service connection pending the suit and the Appeal Suit, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the parties to work out their remedy on the outcome of the second appeal in S.A(MD)No.119 of 2011. This order does not have any bearing on the right of parties in the second appeal. The impugned notice shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal

¶69

7/9

¶70

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

¶71

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶72

of the second appeal. The respondent shall proceed further based on the outcome of the second appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶73

08.11.2023

¶74

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. To

¶75

The Assistant Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance) Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Kannivadi, Dindigul District.

¶76

8/9

¶77

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

¶78

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶79

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶80

ogy

¶81

W.P.(MD)Nos.5531 to 5534 of 2011

¶82

08.11.2023

¶83

9/9

¶84

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

Shanmugam v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmugam v. the Assistant 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

Peri. Rajendran, Vs the Sub Registrar

Vellaichamy. P Vs Abdul Raja Mohammed

Naganathan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Ammalkani, W/O.Seeni Nadar, Vs the Branch Manager

N. Ramachandran, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

R. Kamala Vs the Assistant Engineer