Madras High CourtWP/10917/2026disposed of with direction

S.Srinivasan v. The Superintending Engineer

2026-03-24Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 10917 of 2026 and WMP.No.11857 of 2026

1. S.Srinivasan

2. Rajesh Kumar Jain Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Superintending Engineer Salem EB Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Udayarpatti Bypass, Kamaraj Colony, Salem 14 2.The Executive Engineer (O and M) South Salem EB Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Udayarpatti Bypass, Kamaraj Colony, Salem 14 3.The Assistant Engineer ( O and M) TANGEDCO, Panaimarathupatti, Salem 636 204 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, directing the 1st respondent to dispose petitioner appeal dated 21.11.2024 and petition under Ombudsman Act dated 15.03.2024 and reminder dated 11.02.2026 and consequently issue directions to the 1st respondent to dispose the same under the provisions of Ombudsman Act in accordance with law. For Petitioner(s):

Ms.D.Bharathy For Respondent:

Mr.I.Syed Sibghatulla

ORDER

WMP.No.11857 of 2026 has been filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition. This petition is ordered on payment of single court fee.

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. This writ petition has been filed for a direction, directing the 1st respondent to dispose petitioner appeal dated 21.11.2024 and petition under Ombudsman Act dated 15.03.2024 and reminder dated 11.02.2026 and consequently issue directions to the 1st respondent to dispose the same under the provisions of Ombudsman Act in accordance with law

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the second petitioner is a tenant of the first petitioner and the respondents have demanded to pay excess amount. Fearing disconnection, the petitioner made payment of Rs.2,12,433/- by way of cheque. It is the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner has not consumed more EB and requested for return of the excess amount. Hence, the petitioner made a complaint on 15.03.2025 before the first respondent under Ombudsman Act and appeal dated 21.11.2024 are also pending without consideration till date. Hence, this writ petition .

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the first respondent to consider the appeal dated 21.11.2024 and the complaint under Ombudsman Act dated 15.03.2025

and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 24-03-2026 dhk Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

M.DHANDAPANI J.

dhk To 1.The Superintending Engineer Salem EB Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Udayarpatti Bypass, Kamaraj Colony, Salem 14 2.The Executive Engineer (O and M) South Salem EB Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Udayarpatti Bypass, Kamaraj Colony, Salem 14 3.The Assistant Engineer ( O and M) TANGEDCO, Panaimarathupatti, Salem 636 204 24-03-2026