Disposed¶33

Magamayi v. The Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board

Mandamus under Article 226 – Non-consideration of representation

Madras HC2 Apr 2025WP(MD)/8943/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electricity service connection; writ of mandamus; non-consideration of representation; statutory duty to decide representation; dereliction of duty; Article 226; TANGEDCO; Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board; Ramanathapuram District; time-bound direction of two months; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Vivek Kumar Singh, J.; W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months, after hearing interested persons; no order as to costs. ¶33

Magamayi Vs The Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the statutory authorities' failure to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2025 seeking a domestic electricity service connection amounts to dereliction of duty justifying a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Whenever a representation of this nature is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon it to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders one way or the other instead of keeping it pending indefinitely; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226 to direct consideration within a stipulated time.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The third respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and all other interested persons, within two months from receipt of a copy of the order; the Court expressly did not express any views on the merits of the matter.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus under Article 226 - Non-consideration of representation - Petitioner sought a domestic electricity service connection (Eb.No.2000535411241055) by representation dated 27.02.2025 to TANGEDCO/TNEB authorities, which went unconsidered. Held: a statutory authority is duty-bound to consider such a representation on its own merits and pass appropriate orders instead of keeping it pending indefinitely; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. Third respondent directed to consider the representation on merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and other interested persons, within two months. Court expressed no opinion on merits. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2025

¶7

Magamayi ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, 10^th Floor, N.P.K.K.R.Maligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶10

2.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Paramakudi Division, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

3.The Assistant Engineer, Sayalkudi, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

4.Manicknathan ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide electricity connection (domestic purpose) in petitioner's Eb.No.2000535411241055 to her premises situated at Periyakulam Village and Panchayath, Kadaladi Taluka, Ramanathapuram District, by considering her representation dated 27.02.2025.

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide electricity service connection (domestic purpose) to the petitioner's premises, situated at Periyakulam Village and Panchayat, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by considering her representation dated 27.02.2025.

¶20

2 . By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶21

3 . Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the fourth respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶22

4 . Seeking to obtain a domestic electricity service connection to the petitioner's premises, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.02.2025. Since it has not been considered so far, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶23

_____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2025

¶26

5 . Heard both sides.

¶27

6 . It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶28

7 . In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the third respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fourth respondent, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the third respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.8943 of 2025

¶33

8 . With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There

¶34

shall be no order as to costs.

¶35