Allowed

R.Ramasamy v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC2 Aug 2024WP(MD)/18376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a lawyer seeking a change in electricity tariff for his G+1 house. The court directed the electricity department to change Tariff VI to Tariff 1(A) for the lift portion after the petitioner provides an undertaking and secures necessary electric inspector permission.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to change Tariff VI to Tariff 1(A) for the lift upon undertaking and electricity inspector permission.

R.Ramasamy Vs The Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18376 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18376 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.15637 of 2024

R.Ramasamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO,

¶11

K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Arasaradi, Madurai.

¶13

3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, TVS Nagar, Madurai-3.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to change the tariff VI to Tariff 1(A) with lift in the SC No.050520052049 S.No. 423/1, Bharathiyar Virivakka Theru, alagappan Nagar Madurai - 3 after getting due approval from the authorities and render justice.

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P(MD)No.18376 of 2024

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramasamy (party in person) For Respondents : Mr.S.Dheenadhayalan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

The petitioner is a practising lawyer. He has constructed the petition mentioned house. It is a storied construction (G+1). The petitioner has put up a lift. One can get service connection for the lift, only if there is a prior permission from the electric inspector. The petitioner states that this process may take sometime. The petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that service connection for the lift alone can be disconnected and it can be maintained for the rest of the house. Since the service connection is under Tariff VI category so far, he wants the tariff to be changed.

¶23

No exception can be taken to the petitioner's request. The respondent is directed to change the tariff VI to tariff 1(A) after taking an undertaking from the petitioner in respect of the lift portion. After the petitioner obtains permission from the electric inspector, the service connection will be given for the lift portion. It will also come under Tariff 1 category. This shall be done immediately by the respondents.

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.P(MD)No.18376 of 2024

¶27

The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶28

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

02.08.2024

¶30

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶31

NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 05.08.2024.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P(MD)No.18376 of 2024

¶35

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶36

rmi

¶37

W.P(MD)No.18376 of 2024

¶38

02.08.2024

¶39

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

R.Ramasamy v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramasamy 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

Arun Chakkaravarthi Vs The District Collector

Vijayakumar S Vs The District Collector

Soundarapandian .T.S.M.M Vs The Sub Registrar

M.Ramakrishnan Vs The Secretary to Government

Chinnasamy Vs The District Collector

Nallammal Vs The Secretary to Government