Allowed¶45

M.Rajendran v. The Chief Executive Engineer

Madras HC9 Jan 2026WP/370/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; electricity disconnection; TANGEDCO; wrongful/unauthorized electricity service connection in another person’s name; representation pending disposal; Article 226 of the Constitution; writ of Mandamus; Coimbatore; Kaniyur Village; Sulur Taluk; Karumathampatti; S.No. 252/2D2, 2D3, 2D4; partition suit O.S. No.605 of 2007 dismissed 19.07.2011; W.P. No.8198 of 2025; O.S. No.1102 of 2025 interim injunction; representation dated 03.12.2025; P.T. Asha J.; Madras High Court; 09.01.2026; allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 4 directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 03.12.2025, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, on merits and in accordance with law, within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition allowed with no costs.

M.Rajendran Vs The Chief Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 4 (TANGEDCO officials) ought to act upon and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 03.12.2025 seeking disconnection of the electricity connection standing in the name of the 5th respondent in Survey No. Ka.Sa.No. 2S2/2 and resurvey Ka.Sa. Nos. 252/2D2, 2D3, 2D4.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 03.12.2025, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶44

Key takeaways

The disposal of the representation is to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.370 of 2026 — High Court of Judicature at Madras, 09.01.2026 (P.T. Asha, J.): Petitioner M. Rajendran, claiming inherited title to S.No. 252/2D2–2D4 at Kaniyur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing TANGEDCO officials (respondents 1–4) to disconnect the electricity connection standing in the name of respondent 5 (S. Ponnusamy), pursuant to his unactioned representation dated 03.12.2025. Background: partition suit O.S. No.605 of 2007 (dismissed 19.07.2011), an alleged order obtained in W.P. No.8198 of 2025 by the 5th respondent suppressing that dismissal, and an interim injunction in the petitioner’s suit O.S. No.1102 of 2025. Considering the limited request and noting the representation had not been disposed of, the Court directed respondents 1–4 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 03.12.2025 after affording a hearing to all interested parties, on merits and in accordance with law, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition allowed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.370 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.370 of 2026

M. Rajendran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, T.N.E.B Complex, West Bikara Office Road, Tata Bad, Coimbatore.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Coimbatore Distribution Circle Crosscut Road, Coimbatore.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karumathampatti, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶13

The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karumathampatti, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District

¶14

5.S.Ponnusamy

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶17

praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to

¶18

4 to disconnect the electricity connection in the name of 5^th respondent in

¶19

Survey No. Ka.Sa.No. 2S2/2 and in resurvey Ka.Sa. No. 252/2D2, 2D3,

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.370 of 2026

¶23

2D4 by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 03-12-2025 and

¶24

pass such further or other as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in

¶25

the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumaresan

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Standing Counsel , for R1 to R4.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶30

“directing the respondents 1 to 4 to disconnect the electricity

¶31

connection in the name of 5th respondent in Survey No. Ka.Sa.No. 2S2/2 and in resurvey Ka.Sa. No. 252/2D2, 2D3, 2D4 by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 03-12-2025 and pass such further or other as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice..”

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that he has inherited the property

¶33

comprised in S.No. 252/2D2, 2D3 and 2D4, situated at Kaniyur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, from his father. Due to some dispute, the paternal aunt of the petitioner and others had filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.605 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore. Initially, in the said suit, an ex parte 2/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.370 of 2026

¶36

preliminary decree was passed, and ultimately, after setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree, the suit was dismissed on 19.07.2011.

¶37

The petitioner’s further case is that the 5th respondent, who is not a party to the suit in O.S. No.605 of 2007, by suppressing the fact of dismissal of the suit and on the basis of the preliminary ex parte decree, obtained an order in W.P. No.8198 of 2025. After coming to know about the fraud committed by the 5th respondent, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No.1102 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, against the 5th respondent and obtained an interim order of injunction.

¶38

The petitioner’s grievance is that the 5th respondent, without having any right over the subject property, by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts, had obtained an electricity service connection in respect of the petitioner’s property in his name. Against this illegal act of the 5th respondent, the petitioner gave a detailed representation dated 03.12.2025 to respondents 1 to 4. However, the same has not been considered to date. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶40

3/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.370 of 2026

¶43

Considering the limited request of the petitioner and taking note of

¶44

the fact that the petitioner’s representation dated 03.12.2025 has not been disposed of till date, respondents 1 to 4 are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 03.12.2025, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45