Disposed¶20

R.Pakkiri v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC22 Jul 2026WP/28269/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TANGEDCO electricity service connection; Writ of Mandamus Article 226; Sivasakthi Vinayagar Temple Thiruppadiripuliyur Cuddalore; representation dated 10.03.2026 kept pending; deficit fee payment; hearing to interested parties; two-week time frame; writ petition disposed of; no costs; Madras High Court Mohammed Shaffiq J.; WP No. 28269 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 on its own merits and provide the electricity connection in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested party, within two weeks from the date of payment of the deficit fee; the Court expressly withheld comment on the merits; no order as to costs. ¶20

R.Pakkiri Vs the Assistant Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO) should be directed, via Writ of Mandamus under Article 226, to provide an electricity service connection to the petitioner for Sivasakthi Vinayagar Temple at Vadakku Veli, Thiruppadiripuliyur, Cuddalore.

¶11

Court's answer

The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 on its own merits and to provide the electricity connection in accordance with law.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The connection was to be provided after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested party, within two weeks from the date of payment of the deficit fee by the petitioner.

¶19

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Mohammed Shaffiq, J.), 22-07-2026 — R.Pakkiri v. The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO (WP No. 28269 of 2026): Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a Mandamus directing TANGEDCO to provide an electricity service connection to Sivasakthi Vinayagar Temple (1050 sq. ft., T.S. Nos. 30/- and 31/2, ward No.5, Block No.2, Vadakku Veli, Thiruppadiripuliyur, Cuddalore). State Counsel informed the Court that the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 was pending only for deficiency in payment of fees. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider the representation on its merits and provide the connection in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and any other interested party, within two weeks of payment of the deficit fee, while expressly stating that it had not expressed any view on the merits; no order as to costs.

¶1

WP No. 28269 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WP No. 28269 of 2026

R.Pakkiri

..Petitioner(s)

The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO, Sannadhi Street, Thiruppadiripuliyur, Cuddalore -607 002

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing respondent to provide electricity service connection to petitioner for Sivasakthi Vinayagar Temple Situate in 1050 sq. ft. in T.S. Nos 30/- and 31/2 in ward NO.5, Block NO.2, Vadakku Veli, Thiruppadiripuliyur, Cuddalore, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Baskar For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Venkataseshaiya Standing Counsel

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to respondent to provide electricity service connection to petitioner for Sivasakthi Vinayagar Temple measuring an extent of 1050 sq. ft., comprised in T.S. Nos. 30/- and 31/2 in ward No.5, Block No.2, situated at Vadakku Veli, Thiruppadiripuliyur, Cuddalore, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 28269 of 2026

¶18

Learned State Counsel for respondent would submit that petitioner’s representation dated 10.03.2026 is kept pending only in view of the fact that there is deficiency in payment of fees, once the deficit fees is paid, petitioner’s request would be considered and appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶19

In view thereof, there shall be a direction to respondent to consider petitioner’s representation dated 10.03.2026 on its own merits and provide electricity connection, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner, any other interested party, within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of deficit fee by petitioner . It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case.

¶20

4. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

22-07-2026

¶22

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MRN

¶23

__________ Page2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 28269 of 2026