Allowed

Rasu.P v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC19 Oct 2024WP(MD)/18563/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an order rejecting an application for agricultural electricity service connection. The court held that the third party's objection did not pertain to the property in dispute and dismissed the requirement for the petitioner to secure a separate patta in his name given the existing patta held by his father.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the applicant's request for an agricultural service connection dated 06.04.2023 is quashed, and the second respondent is directed to grant the electricity service connecti

Rasu.P Vs The Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.18563 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.18563 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15394 of 2023

P.Rasu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Executive Engineer, Generation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Madurai East, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Assistant Engineer, Thirumangalam East, TANGEDCO, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶12

3.K.Vellai

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same consequently directing the second respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's agricultural land in Survey No.13/8, situated at the Eliyarpathi Village, Thiruppankudram Taluk, Madurai District.

¶15

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.18563 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr.G.Kasinathadurai
For R1 & R2	: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
	Standing Counsel
For R3	: Mr.R.Karunanidhi

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Challenge has been made to the order passed by the respondent rejecting the application for agricultural service connection mainly on the basis of the objection raised by the third respondent.

¶20

2.The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was purchased by the father of the petitioner. After his demise, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of that property. The petitioner applied for agricultural service connection for that property. Since there was a delay in considering that application, earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. (MD)No.6220 of 2022 seeking to provide service connection. The said writ writ petition was disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. The third respondent herein claiming right over the subject property also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.288 of 2022 before this Court seeking a direction not to give electricity service connection to the petitioner. In that writ petition, it was recorded that the petitioner was directed to produce separate patta. Based on that recording, the

¶21

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.18563 of 2023

¶23

application of the petitioner has been rejected by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent raised objection only with regard to the ancestral property of the petitioner. However, the land, to which the petitioner seeks electricity service connection is different. In the objection submitted by the third respondent, the property in Survey No.13/8 has not been included. Hence, seeks a direction.

¶25

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

5.Perusal of the objection given by the third respondent shows that the third respondent has not claimed any right over the property, for which the electricity service connection is now sought. Therefore, when the petitioner produces the patta stands in favour of his father, the said patta cannot be ignored and the electricity service connection cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner has to obtain separate patta in his name.

¶27

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.18563 of 2023

¶29

6.In view of the above, the order passed by the second respondent dated

¶30

06.04.2023 is quashed and this writ petition stands allowed. The second respondent is directed to grant electricity service connection to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

19.10.2024

¶32

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no ta

¶33

¶34

1.The Executive Engineer, Generation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Madurai East, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶35

2.The Assistant Engineer, Thirumangalam East, TANGEDCO, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶36

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.18563 of 2023

¶38

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.18563 of 2023

¶41

19.10.2024

¶42

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rasu.P v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasu.P v. The Executive 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

R.Jothikrishnan Vs The District Collector

Narayani Vs The District Registrar

Kalloorani Kshathriya Nadargal Uravinmurai Vs The District Registrar (Societies Registration)

Nagendra Sethupathi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M/s.Dorsa General Trading Private Limited Vs Union of India

Ramkumar .P Vs The District Collector / Chairman