Dismissed

Krishnaveni v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC5 Aug 2025WP(MD)/21346/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation of her electricity service connection application for a commercial premises in Dindigul. The court found no records proving ownership or lease of the land and noted the structure was a dilapidated temporary shed. It dismissed the petition with liberty to reapply with documents and suitable infrastructure.

What the court decided

AI extract

Krishnaveni Vs The Superintending Engineer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD) No. 21346 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No. 21346 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 16475 of 2025

Krishnaveni

... Petitioner

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Dindigul Distribution Circle, Meenakshinayakanpatti, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Begampur, Dindigul. ... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

¶13

issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent vide his proceedings Nil

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No. 21346 of 2025

¶17

dated 27.08.2024 quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondents to provide Electricity Service connection to the petitioners Hotel situated in T.S.No. 24 for an extend of 486 Sq.feet situated at Bharathipuram, Nagal Nagar, 6th Ward, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District through on the basis of petitioners application dated 29.07.2024.

¶18

For petitioner : Mr. T. Vadivelan, For respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶22

2.The petitioner has applied for service connection for commercial purpose. It appears that the petitioner was called upon to furnish certain documents, which were not furnished and therefore, the application was cancelled on 27.08.2024.

¶23

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

¶24

2/5

¶25

W.P.(MD) No. 21346 of 2025

¶26

Hence, the petitioner has now approached this Court for quashing the aforesaid order.

¶27

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the photo copy of the dilapidated shed owned by the petitioner, in respect of which the petitioner is seeking service connection.

¶28

4.There are no records filed by the petitioner to substantiate that the land in T.S.No.24 measuring to an extent of 486 Sq.ft at Barathipuram, Nagal Nagar, 6th ward, Dindigul Town, belongs to the petitioner. That apart, the photograph shown by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents indicates that there is no construction and a temporary shed has been put up by the petitioner which is also in a dilapidated condition.

¶29

5.Under these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents with a fresh application, if the petitioner's request is substantiated with the documents that the petitioner is the owner of the land in

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No. 21346 of 2025

¶33

T.S.No.24 or lessee of the land and after making suitable changes in the infrastructure in respect of which the petitioner seeks commercial service connection from the respondents. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

05.08.2025

¶35

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

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No. 21346 of 2025

¶39

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(MD) No. 21346 of 2025

¶42

05.08.2025

¶43

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

¶44

5/5

Krishnaveni v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Krishnaveni v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagarajan Vs The District Revenue Officer

K.Kannan Vs The Managing Director

Tvl. Deepesh Tin Works Vs The State Tax Officer

Tvl Kamatchi Plasters Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Jayaprakash Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Balakumar Vs The Government of India