Disposed

S.Kulanthairaj v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC22 Oct 2025WP(MD)/29543/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the rejection of an application to transfer an electricity connection to land allotted to the petitioner under a partition deed. The court quashed the impugned order, required the petitioner to submit relevant documents within a week, and directed reconsideration within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order quashed; petitioner to produce documents within one week; 2nd respondent to pass final orders within two weeks thereafter.

S.Kulanthairaj Vs The Superintending Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.29543 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.29543 of 2025

S.Kulanthairaj

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO,

¶11

TNEB Complex, Old Bus Stand, Pudukkottai.

¶12

The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Keeranur East, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Keeranur Taluk Pudukkottai District.

¶14

Arockiasamy ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other order, orders in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in Ka.No.Vu.Mi.Po/EKa/East/Keeranur/Ko.Obj./A.No.72/25-26, dated

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.29543 of 2025

¶19

04.08.2025 and Quash the same as void and illegal, consequently issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioners house comprised in survey number 291/3, situated at Door No. 233, Savariyaarpattinam East, Nanjur Post, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the application dated 31.07.2025.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 04.08.2025 and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to give electricity connection by considering the petitioner's application dated 31.07.2025.

¶23

Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.D.Sasi Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the 3^rd respondent. Since no adverse orders are to be passed against the 4^th respondent, notice to the 4^th respondent is dispense with.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.29543 of 2025

¶27

By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that his father had purchased many properties in and around Marudhur and Nanjur Village at Keeranur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. During his lifetime, all his properties were partitioned between the petitioner and his two brothers namely Arockiasamy/4^th respondent herein and John Robert. A Partition Deed was also executed between the petitioner and his brothers and the same was also countersigned by the parties and witnesses. Pursuant to the Partition Deed, the petitioner was allotted “B Schedule Properties”.

¶29

While so, the petitioner's father had passed away on 06.01.2017. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner has made an application before the 2^nd respondent on 31.07.2025 to transfer the EB Connection in S.No.291/3 to his name, for which he has also made necessary payments. That being so, the petitioner has also paid the property tax for the above said property on 12.06.2025 and the 3^rd respondent has also issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 08.07.2025.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.29543 of 2025

¶33

At this juncture, the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated

¶34

04.08.2025 had rejected the application submitted by the petitioner dated 31.07.2025. Aggrieved, by the same the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent straight away had rejected the application of the petitioner is abuse of process of law. He would further submit that without conducting proper enquiry, the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 04.08.2025, only on the basis of the objections raised by the Arockiasamy/4^th respondent which is against principles of natural justice. Therefore, he seeks to quash the impugned order dated 04.08.2025.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the application submitted by the petitioner dated 31.07.2025, will be considered and final orders will be passed within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.29543 of 2025

¶40

In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 stands quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents sought for by the respondents including the partition deed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders within a period of two weeks therefrom.

¶41

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

¶42

No costs.

¶43

22.10.2025

¶44

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.29543 of 2025

P.T.ASHA, J.

rgm

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, TNEB Complex, Old Bus Stand, Pudukkottai.

¶52

The Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Keeranur East, Pudukkottai District.

¶53

The Tahsildar, Keeranur Taluk Pudukkottai District.

¶54

W.P.(MD).No.29543 of 2025

¶55

22.10.2025

¶56

6/6

¶57

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

S.Kulanthairaj v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kulanthairaj 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

Dr. Sankari, Vs the District Collector

S.Anbu Rose, Vs the Commissioner

Dhanakodi a Vs The District Revenue Officer

Daffodil D Almeida Vs Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation

V.Balusamy Vs The Chairman/Managing Director

Dhanushya Vs The State of Tamil Nadu