BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD)No.10640 of 2008 Raja . . . Petitioner Vs. 1. The Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Theni Town, Theni District. 2. Thangavel 3. Baskaran . . . Respondents PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondents from granting electricity service connection to the respondents 2 & 3 in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.1297/2 and 1297/1B, Vanarpu Pulam, Bodinayakanur Village North, Tehni District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2008 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan ^For Respondents... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar TNEB for R1. * * * * :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to forbear the first respondent from
granting electricity service connection to the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of
the lands comprised in Survey Nos.1297/2 and 1297/1B, Vanarpu Pulam,
Bodinayakanur Village North, Tehni District by considering the petitioner’s
representation dated 30.08.2008 within the period that may be stipulated by this
Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.M.Suresh
Kumar, learned standing counsel for TNEB, who took notice on behalf of the first
respondent.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect that despite the petitioner petitioned the first
respondent not to give electricity connection to the second respondent, the
first respondent is keeping quiet and inert. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would develop his arguments to
the effect that the third respondent is the brother of the petitioner; the
petitioner filed a civil suit for partition; while so, the third respondent
without any partition having been effected between the petitioner and the third
respondent and others, simply sold a portion of the joint property in favour of
the second respondent and put him in possession of certain area and in the
meanwhile, the second respondent approached the first respondent for electricity
connection, which should not be given.
5. The learned standing counsel for TNEB would submit that the first
respondent might be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner on
merits as per Rule 27 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004.
6. Hence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:
The first respondent shall do well to see that he considers the
representation of the petitioner dated 30.08.2008 on merits as per Rule 27 (4)
of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 after giving due
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as to the second
respondent, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
smn
To
The Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Theni Town,
Theni District.