Allowed

Cinniah v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC16 Dec 2024WP(MD)/30160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought electricity service connection; TANGEDCO refused due to Karaikudi Municipality classifying his house as poramboke land. Court relied on its identical earlier order and directed connection after undertaking affidavit and indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to provide electricity service connection after obtaining undertaking affidavit and indemnity bond from petitioner; no costs.

Cinniah Vs The Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P(MD)NO.30160 OF 2024

Cinniah

: Petitioner

.vs.

1.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Distribution Circle, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Town/South Karaikudi, Sivangangai District.

¶12

3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Town/South Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. :Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner’s application for providing electricity service connection based on the application NO. 2000540211242428, dated 26.11.2024.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.VA.Shanmugarj

¶15

For Respondents :Mr.S.Dheenadayalan 1 to 3 Standing Counsel

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

**O R D E R ************

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner’s application for providing electricity service connection based on the application NO.2000540211242428, dated 26.11.2024.

¶20

2.Mr.S.Dheenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶21

3.The Petitioner is a Coolie and he applied for electricity service connection for his house bearing No.66, Saraswathi Mahal near, Karaikudi on 26.11.2024 and also paid necessary fees for the same. Inspite of the Petitioner’s application, no action was taken by the respondents for providing electricity service connection because of the objection raised by the Karaikudi Municipality, that the Petitioner’s house was classified as Poramboke land. The Petitioner relying on Section 43 of the Electicity Act, 2003 and also the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9842 of 2024 filed the above Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

4.This Court in an identical matter in W.P(MD)No.9842 of 2024, dated 25.4.2024 passed the following order:

¶25

‘’4.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner draws my attention to the decision reported in 2013(6)CTC 849(T.M.Prakash nd aothers .vs. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District., Tiruvannamalai and another) and the order,d ted 25.8.2020 made in W.P.No.10501 of 2020(S.Babu .vs. The Assistant Engineer). It has been held therin that electricity supply being a basic amenity cannot be denied to occupiers of poramboke lands. TANGEDCO was directed to obtain necessary undertaking and indemnity bond from the applicants and grant supply of electricity.

¶26

5.I am of the view tht the very same approach can be adopted in this case also.The third respondent shll provide electricity supply to the Petitioner herein after obtaining undertaking affidavit and indemnity bond from the Petitioner. It is however made lcear that grant of electricity supply to the Petitioner herein by virtue of this Court’s order will not come in the way of the locl body from initiating any action against the Petitioner. I have to make this clarification because the locl body is not before me. ‘’

¶27

The order made in the above Writ Petition is squarely applicable to

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

the present case.

¶31

5.Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the third respondent to provide electricity service connection to the Petitioner’s house as aforementioned, after obtaining an undertaking affidavit and Indemnity Bond from the Petitioner. It is made clear that the order of this Court will not come in the way of the local body from initiating any action against the Petitioner for occupying the Government Poramboke land.

¶32

6.With the afoesaid direction and clarification, the Writ petition is allowed. No costs

¶33

16.12.2024

¶34

NSC :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶35

vsn

¶36

¶37

1.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Distribution Circle, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶38

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Town/South Karaikudi, Sivangangai District.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karaikudi Town/South Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶42

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

N.MALA, J.

vsn

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)NO.30160 of 2024

¶47

16.12.2024

¶48

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

Cinniah v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cinniah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habib Rahman a Vs The District Collector

Sirajudin Vs the District Collector

S.Thangarasu Vs The District Collector

S.Mathivannan Vs The Thasildar

N.Kaviashokkumar Vs The Registrar

Rengasamy Vs The Tahsildar