The Superintending Engineer Vs L R Palanisamy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Superintending Engineer Vs L R Palanisamy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed with no order as to costs, connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.10011 of 2026) closed, and the appellants granted a week's time to effect one electricity service connection to the respondent.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.04.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11140 of 2026, directing the appellants to effect one electricity service connection within two weeks and the remaining service connections within six months from payment of necessary charges, is liable to be set aside in this writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Court's answer

None of the applications seeking electricity service connection made by the respondent was rejected by the appellants at any point of time.

Ratio / Principle

After scrutiny of the applications, the payments/charges for the electricity service connections were made by the respondent and were accepted by the appellants.

Key takeaways

There is no error and/or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge; the writ appeal is bereft of substance and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶46
While dismissing the writ appeal, the appellants are granted a week's time to effect one electricity service connection to the respondent.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) – Electricity service connections – Agricultural service connections sought under Fast Track (Tatkal) Self Financing Scheme – TANGEDCO/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board officials appealed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11140 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026, which directed them to effect one electricity service connection within two weeks and the remaining service connections within six months from payment of necessary charges – Respondent had sought three agricultural service connections for lands in S.F.Nos.85/2 and 101/2B, Santhipalayam Revenue Village, Nambiyur Taluk, having submitted payments dated 18.12.2025 – An earlier order dated 18.3.2026 had directed connections upon payment of charges; the appellants did not comply, citing the scheme's maximum six-month period – Appellants contended the respondent already had three connections and that further allotment depended on seniority of application – Held: none of the respondent's applications was ever rejected; after scrutiny, his payments/charges were accepted by the appellants; no error or infirmity in the Single Judge's order; the appeal is bereft of substance – Writ appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; appellants granted one week to effect one electricity service connection to the respondent.

W.A.No.964 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.04.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.A.No.964 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.10011 of 2026

1.The Superintending Engineer

GEDC, TANGEDCO Gobichettipalayam, Erode (Dt.)

2.The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance TANGEDCO Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance, Gobi-South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

4.The Assistant Engineer Operation and Maintenance Getticheviyur, Nambiyur (Tk.) Erode District.

Appellants

Vs

_______________ Page 1 of 7_

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

W.A.No.964 of 2026

L.R.Palanisamy S/o.Rangasamy Gounder Lakshmipudur Getticheviyur PO & Via Nambiyur Taluk Gobichettipalayam-638 110.

Respondent

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11140 of 2026, dated 01.04.2026.

For Appellants: Mr.P.Kumaresan Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.I.Syed Sibghatulla

For Respondent: Mr.C.Munusamy for Mr.K.Rajendran

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

assails the order dated 1.4.2026 passed in W.P.No.11140 of 2026, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to effect one electricity service connection within a period of two weeks from

Page 2 of 7

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

W.A.No.964 of 2026

the date of the order and the remaining service connections within a period of six months from the date of payment of necessary charges by the respondent.

The respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to issue three agricultural service connections to the lands in S.F.Nos.85/2, 101/2B situated at Santhipalayam Revenue Village, Nambiyur Taluk, by considering the respondent’s payments dated 18.12.2025 submitted under Fast Track (Tatkal) Self Financing Scheme.

The case of the writ petitioner/respondent herein is that, on 18.3.2026, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to effect electricity service connections to the subject-properties, if the respondent has paid necessary charges. Despite payment of necessary charges, the appellants did not comply with the order on the ground that the scheme itself provides for maximum six months time for effecting electricity service connection.

Page 3 of 7

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

W.A.No.964 of 2026

The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated

1.4.2026, after considering the submissions made on either side, observed that the prescribed time period of six moths for providing electricity service connection does not mean that such connection must necessarily be provided at the end of the said period. Taking note of the need for electricity service connection, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to effect one electricity service connection within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent herein is already having three electricity service connections and the grant of one more connection is purely based on the seniority of the application and that the respondent is much below in seniority and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed such an order.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the coconut trees standing on the subject-properties are affected due to non-drawal of water for want of electricity connection and, in order to save the coconut trees, one

_______________ Page 4 of 7_

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

W.A.No.964 of 2026

service connection is essential. He would submit that the direction of the learned Single Judge to effect one electricity service connection within the stipulated time warrants no interference.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, we are of the view that none of the applications seeking electricity service connection made by the respondent was rejected by the appellants at any point of time. After scrutiny of the applications, payments/charges for the electricity service connections have been made by the respondent and the same were accepted by the appellants. In fact, finding merits in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Single Judge observed that the six months period is likely to expire in short duration and, therefore, directed at least one service connection should be effected within two weeks. We do not find any error and/or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is bereft of substance and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no

_______________ Page 5 of 7_

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

W.A.No.964 of 2026

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The appellants are granted a week’s time to effect one electricity service connection to the respondent.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

20.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr To:

1.The Superintending Engineer GEDC, TANGEDCO Gobichettipalayam, Erode (Dt.)

2.The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance TANGEDCO Gobichettipalayam,

Erode District.

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance, Gobi-South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

4.The Assistant Engineer Operation and Maintenance Getticheviyur, Nambiyur (Tk.) Erode District.

_______________ Page 6 of 7_

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

W.A.No.964 of 2026

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr

W.A.No.964 of 2026

20.04.2026

_______________ Page 7 of 7_

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