M.Sikkandar Beevi Vs The Superintending Engineer

¶1

WP (MD). No.568 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 23.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP(MD)No.568 of 2026 and WMP(MD)No.1765 of 2026

¶7

M.Sikkandar Beevi ... Petitioner - Vs. - 1.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram Distribution Circle, Near RTO Office, Bharathi Nagar, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Executive Engineer, Execution and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Near RTO Office, Bharathi Nagar, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

3.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Execution and Maintenance, Perunali Village, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to direct the

¶10

1/5

¶11

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

¶12

2 nd

¶13

WP (MD). No.568 of 2026

¶14

2^nd and 3^rd respondent to disconnect the electricity

¶15

service connection in Service No.05-350-025-697 of the petitioner's house property bearing Door No.1/68 at Perunali Village of Ramanathapuram District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.12.2025.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Atham Ali

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking

¶20

issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to, in turn, direct respondents 2 and 3 to disconnect the electricity service connection bearing Service No. 05-350-025-697 to the house property situated at Door No. 1/68, Perunali Village, Ramanathapuram District, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 09.12.2025.

¶21

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the

¶22

said property, wherein her sister is presently

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

WP (MD). No.568 of 2026

¶26

residing. It is stated that the building is in a dilapidated condition and the petitioner intends to demolish the same. For that purpose, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents seeking disconnection of the electricity service connection. However, the said representation has not been considered so far.

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶28

respondents submitted that the petitioner’s request would be considered subject to a spot inspection and upon obtaining consent from the occupier of the premises. It is further submitted that, if such consent is given, the electricity service connection would be disconnected. The said submission is recorded.

¶29

In view of the above, the third respondent is

¶30

directed to conduct a spot inspection, record the statement of the occupier of the property, and, subject to the occupier’s consent, disconnect the electricity service connection to the said property.

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

WP (MD). No.568 of 2026

¶34