Disposed

Santhanadevi v. The Divisional Engineer

Madras HC18 Jun 2026WP(MD)/16596/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing TANGEDCO to give an electricity service connection to her dwelling house based on a settlement deed. Standing Counsel stated that a fresh application with charges would be considered in accordance with law; the court disposed of the petition with liberty to reapply and directed consideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit fresh application with charges; second respondent to consider and provide electricity connection within four weeks if requirements satisfied.

Santhanadevi Vs The Divisional Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2026

Santhanadevi

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Divisional Engineer, TANGEDCO, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

2.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Periyakarisalkulam, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct to the respondents to give Electricity Service Connection to the petitioner’s dwelling house in S.No. 125/29 respectively situated at Kattangudi Village, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District based on the settlement deed and without insisting the patta or house tax receipt within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.V.G.Vallarasu For Respondents :Mr.S.Deenadhayalan *****

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2026

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to provide electricity service connection to her dwelling house situated in Survey No.125/29, Kattangudi Village, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶18

2.According to the petitioner, she became the owner of the property by virtue of a settlement deed executed in her favour by her husband and sister-in-law. The petitioner submitted an application seeking electricity service connection for the dwelling house. However, the application was rejected on the ground of non-payment of the prescribed application charges.

¶19

3.Mr. S. Deenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

¶20

the respondents, on instructions, submitted that if the petitioner submits a fresh application along with the required charges, the same will be considered in accordance with law. The said submission is recorded.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2026

¶24

4.In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application. Upon receipt of such application, and subject to the petitioner satisfying all other requirements, the second respondent shall consider the same and provide electricity service connection to the petitioner’s dwelling house within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application.

¶25

5.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Index :Yes / No 18.06.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2026

¶30

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

¶31

cmr

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.16596 of 2026

¶33

18.06.2026

¶34

4/4

¶35

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

Santhanadevi v. The Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhanadevi v. The Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harikrishna. Sa Vs Director of Town and Country Planning

M.Pratheep Kumar Vs The Registrar

K.Senthamilselvan, Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

Rajapandi Vs The Principal Secretary

Muthusamy, Vs M. Aruna, I.A.S.

Christal Rabin Vs The Joint Director