P.Mani v. The Superintending Engineer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP.No.2893 of 2026 P.Mani ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Executive Engineer - East, (O And M) TANGEDCO, Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (O And M) TANGEDCO Mangalam Post Tiruvannamalai District.
4. The Assistant Engineer, (O And M) TANGEDCO
Mangalam Tiruvannamalai District.
..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the petitioners free agriculture service connection No.306-010-95/ TF-IV forthwith situated at Mangalam Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Kolandasamy For Respondent(s):
Mr.Swami Subramanian
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "directing the respondents to restore the petitioners free agriculture service connection No.306-010-95/ TF-IV forthwith situated at Mangalam Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District."
2. The petitioner is a marginal farmer who has been cultivating agricultural crops and has been availing a free agricultural electricity service connection for over four decades.
3. While so, the 4th respondent had disconnected the said service connection during the petitioner's absence when he had gone on pilgrimage. Though the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Chief Minister's Cell, and the respondents claimed that the electricity supply had been restored, the service connection remains disconnected.
4. Subsequently, the respondents had installed a transformer at a distance of about 20 feet adjacent to the petitioner's land, wherein fully grown Casuarina trees were standing. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent, without his knowledge or consent, cut and removed the said Casuarina trees. Therefore, the petitioner had issued a legal notice seeking compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Since there was no response, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, seeking compensation. The said suit was decreed, and the Court had directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. The respondents had paid the said amount. However, the respondents have not restored the petitioner's agricultural electricity service connection. Therefore, petitioner had made several representations to the respondents requesting restoration of the electricity service connection. However, no action has been taken by the respondents to date. Hence, the Writ Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
6. From a perusal of the records, it is not clear as to when the disconnection of the free agricultural service connection took place, as is evident from paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which reads as follows: " I submit that I am facing frequent power failure due to shortage of production, supply of electricity, the adjacent mill owner's pump set, flour mill and his oil expeller were running simultaneously. When I had gone on a pilgrimage, the 4th respondent has disconnected my agriculture service connection without any intimation. Therefore, I have sent a complaint to Chief Minister's Cell and the respondents stated that the power supply restored. But there is no power supply restored for my agriculture service until now."
7. The petitioner's case is that the disconnection was effected as a backlash to the suit for damages filed by him in O.S. No.183 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court against the respondents, alleging illegal cutting of casuarina trees. The said suit was ultimately dismissed, after contest, on 27.11.2014.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that the disconnection took place in the year 2008. However, in the suit filed subsequently, there is absolutely no mention of the disconnection of
the agricultural service connection. Even assuming, without admitting, that such non-mention is not fatal to the petitioner's case, it is to be noted that the petitioner, whose service connection is stated to have been disconnected as early as in the year 2008, has not chosen to challenge the same for a considerable period of time and has approached this Court belatedly after 18 years. This clearly indicates that the petitioner is not genuinely aggrieved. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board would submit that the electricity service connection has been restored in the year 2010. Considering the fact that there has been no challenge to the alleged disconnection, this Court can only presume that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Board is correct, and that the petitioner has not questioned the disconnection since the service connection had already been restored.
9. Therefore, this Court finds that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is also vague with regard to material particulars, apart from suppression of relevant facts. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SHR
To
1. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Executive Engineer - East, (O And M) TANGEDCO Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (O And M) TANGEDCO Mangalam Post Tiruvannamalai District.
4. The Assistant Engineer, (O And M) TANGEDCO Mangalam Tiruvannamalai District.
P.T.ASHA, J.
SHR 02-02-2026