Dismissed

Karuppiah .S.P.D v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC25 Apr 2023WP(MD)/8787/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the grant of an electricity connection to Nirmala, the Madurai Bench held that electricity pendency is a private dispute. The court ruled that Article 226 cannot resolve private disputes and directed that the connection continue. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are unable to compel the respondents to disconnect the electricity connection. No costs.

Karuppiah .S.P.D Vs The Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.8787 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:25.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.8787 of 2022

S.P.D.Karuppiah

... Petitioner

The Superintending Engineer, O/o. Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, District Collector Campus, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kazhanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶12

The Assistant Engineer,, TANGEDCO, Kazhanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶13

Nirmala

¶14

....Respondents

¶15

Prayer :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, for a direction directing the

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.8787 of 2022

¶19

Respondent no. 1 to 3 to conduct the enquiry and disconnect the electricity connection in S.C.No. 402-016-842 in the name of Respondent No.4 in respect of old Door No. 5/4, New No. 50/2 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner :Mr. S.Rajasekar For R1 to R3 :Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel For R4 :Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The writ petition had been filed in the nature of mandamus, seeking a direction against the respondents 1 to 3/Superintending Engineer,

¶23

Sivagangai, Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer at TANGEDCO, Kazhanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, to conduct enquiry and disconnect the electricity connection in SC No.402-016-842 in the name of fourth respondent, Mrs.Nirmala, with respect to old Door No. 5/4, New No. 50/2 in T.S.No.563 Part, Karaikudi Municipality, Sivagangai District.

¶24

2.The fourth respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2006 before the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.8787 of 2022

¶28

possession of the plaintiff/fourth respondent. The said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the fourth respondent had filed A.S.No.5of 2008, before the Sub Court, Devakottai, that was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed second appeal in SA(MD)No.1183 of 2011, that is pending before this Court.

¶29

3.The pendency of suit will not be a bar for providing electricity service connection. The fourth respondent has already been granted electricity connection. Let it continue. This court cannot issue any mandamus to disconnect any electricity service connection. It is only a private dispute between the petitioner on one hand and fourth respondent on another hand. Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot be a platform to resolve that particular issue.

¶30

4.The mandamus as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶31

Therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶32

25.04.2023

¶33

NCS :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PNM

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.8787 of 2022

¶37

¶38

The Superintending Engineer, O/o. Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, District Collector Campus, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶39

The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kazhanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶40

The Assistant Engineer,, TANGEDCO, Kazhanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.8787 of 2022

¶44

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶45

PNM

¶46

ORDER IN W.P(MD).No.8787 of 2022 MP?

¶47

25.04.2023

¶48

5/5

¶49

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

Karuppiah .S.P.D v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppiah .S.P.D 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

Jasline M Vs The Registrar

Arumugam, Vs The Commissioner

Kamuthi Vattara Santhai Vyabarigal Sangam Vs The District Collector

M/s. Csb Construction Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Jonsy Mary (Wrongly mentioned) Vs The Government of India

K.Murugan Vs The Passport Officer