Disposed

Seeman, S/O.Ramasamy Pillai, v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC12 Nov 2024WP(MD)/22984/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that granting a writ of prohibition is inappropriate since the power lines had already been installed and supply made. The Court directed the petitioner to seek removal within 4 weeks after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to approach the second respondent for removal or shifting of the lines within four weeks after being afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Seeman, S/O.Ramasamy Pillai, Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015

Seeman

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Near Old Bus Stand, Pudukkotai.

¶11

2.The Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶12

Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶14

Karambakudi, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

4.The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶16

Karambakudi, Pudukkottai District.

¶17

_________Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015

¶20

5.AVM Pannai, Rep., by its Owner Ramesh, S/o.Venkatachalam, Kallaikottai Village and Post, Gandarvakkottai Taluk, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents

¶21

[R5 – Suo motu impleaded vide order dated 22.08.2023 made in W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015]

¶22

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Prohibition, restraining the respondents and their men or agent from installing or drawing any power line running through the petitioner's land with a total extent of 1-23-00 Hectares bearing Sy.Nos.334/1, 334/2 and 334/3 of revenue village of Kallakottai, Kandarvakottai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel For R5 : No appearance

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The prayer in the writ petition is to prohibit the respondents from

¶26

laying the electrical poles and drawing electrical line in the petitioner's property.

¶27

_________Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the poles have already been installed, electric lines have been drawn and supply has been made to various consumers.

¶31

Since the lines have already been laid, this Court is of the view that the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage. Further, even on merits, a writ of prohibition cannot be issued prohibiting an authority from carrying out statutory duties that have been vested under the statute.

¶32

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would make appropriate application to the second respondent herein for removing/shifting of the said lines that have been laid within the petitioner's land.

¶33

If such representation is made by the petitioner, the second

¶34

respondent shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of four weeks, however after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner.

¶35

_________Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015

¶38

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

12.11.2024

¶41

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

¶42

abr

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015

¶46

¶47

1.The Superintending Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Near Old Bus Stand, Pudukkotai.

¶48

2.The Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶49

Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶50

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶51

Karambakudi, Pudukkottai District.

¶52

4.The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),

¶53

Karambakudi, Pudukkottai District.

¶54

_________Page 5 of 6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015

¶57

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶58

abr

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.22984 of 2015

¶60

Dated: 12.11.2024

¶61

_________Page 6 of 6

¶62

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

Seeman, S/O.Ramasamy Pillai, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeman, S/O.Ramasamy Pillai, 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

S.P.Murthy, Vs the District Collector

Santhana Muthiah.R Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Thirumagal Dyeing Works Vs Joint Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise

Haji.a.G.Syed Mohideen Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

M. Palgees Amma Vs the Superintendent of Engineer

R.Suresh, S/O.Ramasamy Vs the Superintending Engineer