Allowed

Sundaram Kr v. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WP(MD)/26687/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought a direction to consider his application for a new electricity service connection, kept pending due to a civil suit over the property. The court held pendency of a suit is no bar where there are no prohibitory orders and directed grant of connection subject to the suit's result.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to give new service connection subject to result of O.S.No.15 of 2025; no costs.

Sundaram Kr Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.26687 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.26687 of 2025

¶7

KR.Sundaram .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO,

¶10

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nachanthupatti, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.P.L.Kulanthai Velu .. Respondents

¶13

(R3 is impleaded vide Court order dated 14.10.2025 in W.M.P(MD)No.22063 of 2025)

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner application Reference No.200061820625295 dated 26.06.2025 to issue new service connection in Door No.3/30/1, Thirunadampatti Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

_________Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.26687 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagia Nambi For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

¶21

“directing the respondents to consider the petitioner application Reference No.200061820625295 dated 26.06.2025 to issue new service connection in Door No.3/30/1, Thirunadampatti Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.”

¶22

It is seen that the petitioner had applied for new service connection on 26.06.2025 and he is regularly paying house tax. There is a civil suit pending with regard to Survey No.829/10 in Thirunadanpatti Village, in O.S.No.15 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Munsif Court, Thirumayam. The application of the petitioner is kept pending without giving any reason. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

_________Page 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.26687 of 2025

¶26

Heard the learned counsels on either side.

¶27

There are no prohibitory orders in the suit O.S.No.15 of 2025 on

¶28

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Munsif Court, Thirumayam. The grant of connection cannot be denied on the ground of pendency of a suit as stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is well open to the authorities to grant the service connection subject to the result of the suit. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to give the service connection subject to the result of the civil suit in O.S.No.15 of 2025. This Court by passing the aforesaid direction has not expressed any opinion on the title or otherwise of the property.

¶29

This Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶30

14.10.2025

¶31

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

¶32

_________Page 3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.26687 of 2025

¶35

¶36

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶37

2.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nachanthupatti, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.26687 of 2025

¶41

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶42

gbg

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.26687 of 2025

¶44

14.10.2025

¶45

_________Page 5 of 5

¶46

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

Sundaram Kr v. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaram Kr v. The Assistant 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

C.Kaliyappan Vs Mr. Dinesh Ponraj Oliver, I.A.S.

G.Rajan, Vs the Secretary to Government

Balasubramanian M Vs The District Collector

Ganesan, Vs the Executive Engineer

S.Ponsekar Vs the Joint Registrar of

R.Jaganath Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies