M.Nareshkumar Vs The Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

M.Nareshkumar Vs The Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus for removal of the transformer erected on the petitioner's land is maintainable, having been instituted approximately 24 years after the erection of the transformer, and whether the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts in not disclosing the date of erection in his affidavit. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands: his omission to state in the affidavit the date on which the transformer was erected in his land amounted to deliberate suppression of material facts.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Standing Counsel's statement that the transformer was erected as early as 2001, the petitioner's contention that he came to know of the erection only now cannot be accepted.

Key takeaways

A writ petition filed after a lapse of 24 years from the date of erection of the transformer is not maintainable and cannot be entertained.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Removal of electricity transformer — Petitioner sought a direction to TANGEDCO officials to remove a transformer erected in his land in SF.No.347/2B2, Puliyampatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, pursuant to his representation dated 08.08.2025, contending it was installed without notice and despite objections — Learned Standing Counsel for respondents stated the transformer had been erected as early as 2001 — Held: the petitioner's failure to disclose in the affidavit the date of erection amounted to deliberate suppression of material facts and unclean hands; his plea of recent knowledge could not be accepted; a writ petition filed after a lapse of 24 years from the date of erection is not maintainable and cannot be entertained — Writ petition dismissed with liberty to work out remedy in the manner known to law; no costs.

W.P.(MD)No.29562 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 23.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

W.P.(MD)No.29562 of 2025

M.Nareshkumar ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), EB Office, Palani North Division, Palani, Dindigul District.

2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) EB Office, Palani North Division, Palani Dindigul District 624 601. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the transformer as put up by the respondents TANGEDCO in the petitioner's land in SF.No.347/2B2 Puliyampatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2025 considering the same and pass necessary orders within the time frame as may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthik

1/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.29562 of 2025

For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondents to remove the transformer alleged to have been put up in the petitioner's land in SF.No. 347/2B2 Puliyampatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner's contention is that the transformer has been installed in his lands without any notice to him and despite his objections, the respondents have proceedd to erect the same. Therefore, the writ petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the said transformer

has been installed as early as in the year 2001.

2/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.29562 of 2025

5. The petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. Nowhere in the affidavit has the petitioner mentioned the date on which the transformer has been erected in his land. This omission amounts to deliberate supression of material facts. From the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that the transformer has been erected as early as in the year 2001. The petitioner having kept quiet all these years has suddenly woken up only in the year 2025. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has come to know about the erection of transformer in his land only now, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the present writ petition, having been filed after a lapse of 24 years from the date of erection of the transformer, is not maintainable and cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.

23.10.2025

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Rmk

3/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.29562 of 2025

To

1.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), EB Office, Palani North Division, Palani, Dindigul District.

2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and

Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) EB Office, Palani North Division, Palani Dindigul District 624 601.

4/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.29562 of 2025

P.T.ASHA, J.

Rmk

W.P.(MD)No.29562 of 2025

23.10.2025

5/5

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