Disposed

G.Subhagaran v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC19 Aug 2024WP/23590/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed electricity authorities to consider a petitioner's representation opposing the disconnection of electricity supplied to a water plant operated by the petitioner. The order ensures a proper enquiry and hearing before any coercive action is taken.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation, conduct enquiry with hearing, pass orders in four weeks, and refrain from coercive steps immediately.

G.Subhagaran Vs the Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.23590 of 2024 and

WMP.No.25803 of 2024

G.Subhagaran

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶12

The Executive Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶13

The Assistant Executive Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Gandhipuram, Sendamangalam South,

¶14

Sendamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District – 637 409.

¶15

The Assistant Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Sendamangalam, Sendamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District – 637 409.

¶16

S.Ganesan ...Respondents

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2024 in respect of the 5^th respondent's application for disconnection of the electricity connection in Service No.042170101154 and 04217010913 in “Ganesan Mineral Water” situated at 2/41, Sellipalayam, Mudulaipatti post, Namakkal District.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, SC

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2024 in respect of the 5^th respondent's application for disconnection of the electricity connection in Service No.042170101154 and 04217010913 in “Ganesan Mineral Water” situated at 2/41, Sellipalayam, Mudulaipatti post, Namakkal District.

¶25

Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, learned Standing counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. In view of the consent expressed by the learned

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

¶29

counsel on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶30

Since no adverse order is being passed against the 5^th respondent, notice to the 5^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent is none other than the father of the petitioner and the properties comprised in S.F.Nos.296/4C, 296/5B3, 298/2 measuring an extent of 1.50 hectare in Sellipalayam, Namakkal District and other properties in and around Sendhamangalam are delineated and it is a integral constituents of the Hindu undivided family ancestral estate of the petitioner and his father/the 5^th respondent herein. While so, in the year 2012, the petitioner established a packaged drinking water plant in the name and style of “Ganesan Mineral Water” (in short 'subject property') using the 5^th respondent as the name lender to the business and the Electricity connection in Service Nos.042170101154 and 04217010913 also stands in the name of the 5^th respondent. Though the said business stands in the name of the 5^th

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

¶35

respondent, it is the petitioner who carryouts all the business activities. Thereafter, due to some difference of opinion, the petitioner obtained fresh GST Certificate in his name without changing the name of the business. In such circumstances, in order to wreck vengeance, the 5^th respondent made an application before the official respondents seeking for disconnection of the above said Electricity service connections in the subject property which were utilised by the petitioner for the operation of the water plant and the 5^th respondent is continuously interrupting the petitioner's enjoyment over the subject property. Thereby, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.04.2024 before the 2^nd respondent objecting the 5^th respondent's application with regard to disconnection of electricity service connection in the subject property, since it is the petitioner who is paying the electricity consumption charges. However, till date, no orders have been passed on the petitioner's representation/objection. Hence, this Writ petition.

¶36

Though very many grounds have been raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation /objection

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

¶40

dated 05.04.2024 and to consequently reject the 5^th respondent's application seeking disconnection of the electricity service connection in the subject property.

¶41

Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that, the petitioner's representation/objection dated 05.04.2024 will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation/objection dated 05.04.2024 along with the 5^th respondent's application for disconnection of electricity service connection in the subject property, if any, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after conducting proper enquiry between the parties by affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. Till such time, the official respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

¶43

5/7

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

¶46

With the above directions, this Writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶47

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

19.08.2024

¶49

skt Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶50

To:

¶51

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶52

The Executive Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶53

The Assistant Executive Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Gandhipuram, Sendamangalam South, Sendamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District – 637 409.

¶54

The Assistant Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Sendamangalam, Sendamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District – 637 409.

¶55

6/7

¶56

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

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

skt

W.P.No.23590 of 2024

and WMP.No.25803 of 2024

¶62

19.08.2024

¶63

7/7

¶64

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

G.Subhagaran v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Subhagaran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Farooq, (Deceased) Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

V.M.Thulasingam Vs Sekher Enterprises

Shri Masaniyamman Thurai Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs Ramesh Babu Perumal

K.M.Chandran Vs the Authorized Person

K.Rajendran Vs the District Collector

Dr. T.Supriya Vs The Secretary to Government