Allowed

M.Subbulakshmi v. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Madras HC18 Jul 2024WP/7658/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a non-speaking rejection order for an electricity connection application which cited document discrepancies without providing notice to the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the TANGEDCO office for a fresh consideration and passing of a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order set aside; application remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh hearing and speaking order within six weeks.

M.Subbulakshmi Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:2769

¶2

W.P.No.7658 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 18.07.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.No.7658 of 2024 & WMP.No.8573 of 2024

M.Subbulakshmi

.... Petitioner

1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represented by its Chairman, 10^th Floor, N.P.K.K.R. Maaligai, No.144, Anana Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

2.The Assistant Director (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Lakshmipuram. TANGEDCO/CEDC/NORTH, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent rejection order dated 05.03.2024 in application

¶14

No.200010260224259, quash the same and consequently direct the

¶15

second respondent to provide electricity connection (domestic purpose) in

¶16

the second floor of the petitioner premises at Door No.76, Plot No.153,

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.P.No.7658 of 2024

¶20

First Street, Bharath Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099,

¶21

based on the application of the petitioner dated 19.02.2024.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Sudalaiyandi

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel (TNEB)

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner is an individual who seeks a writ of certiorarified

¶26

mandamus challenging an order of cancellation dated 05.03.2024 of her application for domestic electricity connection for the premises at Door No.76, Plot No.153, First Street, Bharath Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶27

An application filed on 19.02.2024 has come to be rejected by way of a non-speaking order dated 05.03.2024 citing the reason ' discrepancies in the uploaded documents'.

¶28

Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondents

¶29

would submit that proper documents, such as registered sale deed ought to have accompanied the application. However, this fact does not feature in the order itself and the petitioner ought to have, prior to the rejection of

¶30

the application been put to notice, so that necessary documents may be produced.

¶31

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

¶32

2/4

¶33

W.P.No.7658 of 2024

¶34

For the aforesaid reasons, that is, on account of the violation of

¶35

principles of natural justice as well as the fact that the rejection is completely arbitrary and non-speaking, impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is set-aside and application dated 19.02.2024 is remanded back to the file of the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

In order to facilitate proper exchange of documents, the petitioner shall appear before the 2^nd respondent on 29.07.2024 at 12.00 noon without awaiting any further notice in this regard. The availability of R2 at that time has also been ascertained from the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

After hearing the petitioner and consideration of documents, if any produced by the petitioner, the application shall be revisited and a speaking order shall be passed, either way, all within a period of six (6) weeks from date of personal hearing, in accordance with law and extant Rules and Regulations. If any documents are required, the respondents shall call for the same from the petitioner.

¶38

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

¶39

3/4

¶40

W.P.No.7658 of 2024

¶41

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶42

This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms by way of

¶43

remand. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

18.07.2024

¶45

Index:Yes/No Speaking order:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes mpl

¶46

¶47

1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represented by its Chairman, 10^th Floor, N.P.K.K.R. Maaligai, No.144, Anana Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶48

2.The Assistant Director (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Lakshmipuram. TANGEDCO/CEDC/NORTH, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶49

W.P.No.7658 of 2024 & WMP.No.8573 of 2024

¶50

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

¶51

4/4

M.Subbulakshmi v. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Subbulakshmi v. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

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

Vadivel alias Senthil Vs the District Revenue Officer

B.Sathyakumari Vs the Tahsildhar

R.B.Wovens P Ltd., Vs the Chairman

John Dinakaran Vs Directorate of Legal Studies

P.Venkatachalam Vs The District Collector

Margadarasi Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of TamilNadu