Ravikumar, v. The Assistant Engineer,

2024:MHC:1236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 08.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Ravikumar ... Petitioner The Assistant Engineer Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Ltd R.Pattanam, Rasipuram (TK), Namakkal-District .... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to provide the electricity connection to petitioner house bearing Door No.3/29A, Pattanam, Muniyappampalayam Village, Vadakku Kadu, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, Comprised in Survey Nos.13/1C1, 13/1C2 and 14/1A an total extent of 3 Acre 17 cents based on the application dated 01.02.2023 made by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Shanmugam For Respondent : Mr.S.Kalaiselvan Standing Counsel 1 / 4

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks mandamus directing the respondent being the Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District to provide electricity connection to his house bearing No.3/29A, Pattanam Muniyappampalayam Village, Vadakku Kadu, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District in Survey Nos.13/1C1, 13/1C2 and 14/1A. 2.Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, learned Standing Counsel who accepts notice for the respondent, however, has instructions to state that the application itself has been cancelled and he circulates a copy of the screen shot of the TANGEDCO website which contains the application tracking status report. This status report shows that the application has indeed been registered on 01.02.2023, and an acknowledgement along with demand raised qua registration charges issued on the same date. The petitioner had paid the charges of a sum of Rs.

4,850/- and receipt for the same has also been placed on file. 3.The entry on 07.02.2023 reveals that the application had been put on hold as defective, as an additional document had been required. On 31.03.2023, the application has been cancelled and the next day, that is, on 01.04.2023, the charges paid by the petitioner have been refunded i.e., the amount of Rs.4,850/-.

4.At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would circulate a copy of a communication dated 27.02.2023 from the respondent stating that that a dispute had been raised by a third party in regard to the electricity connection sought for the subject property. This communication ought to have been filed along with the writ petition and the third party ought to have been arrayed as a party in the writ petition.

5.The very fact that the petitioner was holding a copy of the above document would indicate that he was well aware of the objection and thus there ought to have been reference to the same in the writ affidavit in the interests of due disclosure.

6.In light of the rejection of the application on 31.03.2023 and the suppression of material referred above, mandamus as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

7.For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 08.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking order 3 / 4

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

To The Assistant Engineer Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Ltd R.Pattanam, Rasipuram (TK), Namakkal-District 08.03.2024 4 / 4