S.Sakthivel v. The Superintending Engineer

2024:MHC:1525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 25.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH S.Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintending Engineer, TNEB, K.K.Nagar, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Nanganallur, Chennai -61.

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Moovarasanpet, TNEB, Madipakkam, Chennai - 91.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.03.2024 consequently direct the respondents to restore the connection in No.264-654-868 to the petitioner's house forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Subramani For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel 1/4

O R D E R

The petitioner, a practising Advocate has come to this Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.03.2024 for restoration of electricity connection. 2.Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice for the respondents states that much water has flown under the bridge. The connection to electricity service No.264-654-868 in the petitioner's premises had been disconnected as early as in 2018 for non-payment of electricity dues. 3.The premises was inspected on 11.03.2024 and according to the respondent, it was found that the petitioner had illegally obtained continuity of the service to that metre and no bills have been paid for the period 2018-2023. The petitioner has, it is alleged, been enjoying electricity connection till date without payment of dues. The inspection on 11.03.2024 revealed the entire saga as aforesaid.

4.An observation mahazar was drawn up on the same date in the presence of the petitioner, and duly served upon him. Surprisingly, there is no reference to the observation mahazar in the writ affidavit. Mr.Venkatesh states that a provisional assessment has been made and a copy of the assessment is 2/4

handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner for onward transmission to the petitioner.

5.In light of the above narration of events, there is no question of issue of mandamus. Let the procedure as stipulated under law be followed, and the matter be taken to a logical conclusion.

6.This writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

25.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking order vs To 1.The Superintending Engineer, TNEB, K.K.Nagar, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Nanganallur, Chennai -61.

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Moovarasanpet, TNEB, Madipakkam, Chennai - 91.

3/4

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

vs 25.03.2024 4/4