Saravanan v. The Chairman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Saravanan .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, CEDC- North, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
3. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, EB Road, Moolakadai, Perambur.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Div-64, TNGEDCO, Perambur West, Chennai.
5. Neeladevi .. Respondents (Respondent No.5 is impleaded vide order dated 07.11.2025 made in WMP No.12202 of 2024 by MDIJ) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the EB service 1/6
connections vide No.01-072-130-163 for the property situated at Chennai District, Perambur Taluk, bearing No.P-1, Annai Therasa Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049, comprised in Survey No.193/2A measuring an extent of 1800 Sq. ft. to which is in the name of Neeladevi and transfer the same to name of petitioner by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 28.11.2023.
For Petitioner :
Mr. Velmuruga Parthiban for Ms.K.Chandra For Respondent 1 to 4 :
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO.
For Respondent - 5 :
Mr.T.Ramachandran
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the electricity service connections bearing No.01-072-130163 for the property of the fifth respondent situate at No.P-1, Annai Therasa Nagar, Villivakkam, Perambur Taluk, Chennai - 600 049, comprised in Survey No.193/2A measuring an extent of 1800 Sq. ft. which is in the name of Neeladevi/5th respondent and transfer the same to name of petitioner by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 28.11.2023.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property situate in Survey No.193/2A measuring an extent of 1800 sq. ft. belongs to one Darastha Reddiar, who had obtained the said property vide 2/6
partition deed dated 27.12.1971 and he appointed one Deivasahayam as his power of attorney. The petitioner had purchased the said property from the said Darastha Reddiar represented by his power of attorney Deivasahayam vide registered sale deed dated 31.07.1995 bearing Doc. No.3269/1995. While purchasing the property, the fifth respondent was in possession. Therefore, after purchase of the property, the petitioner requested the fifth respondent to vacate the premises and hand over the same to him. However, the fifth respondent requested the petitioner to grant three months time to vacate the premises and believing her words, the petitioner granted three months time. In the meantime, the fifth respondent illegally obtained property tax and water tax and by using the same, she obtained electricity connection in her name.
She had also filed a frivolous suit in O.S.No.5839 of 2015 as against the petitioner on the file of the learned XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and the said suit was dismissed on 09.11.2023. He further submitted that the prayer in the above suit is only for permanent injunction and not for declaration. Even the permanent injunction prayer was also rejected by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and hence, there is no legal impediment for the respondents 1 to 4/Electricity Board to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the same.
3/6
3.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that as against the dismissal of the suit filed by the fifth respondent in O.S.No.5839 of 2025, she filed an appeal in A.S.No.168 of 2024 on the file of the learned XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, which is pending. Therefore, the respondents could not consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.11.2023.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that as against the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.5839 of 2025, the fifth respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.168 of 2024 on the file of the learned XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and the arguments was also over. Hence, the representation of the petitioner may be considered after the disposal of the Appeal in A.S.No.168 of 2024 on the file of the learned XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.
4/6
6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side and the fact that the appeal filed by the fifth respondent in A.S.No.168 of 2024 as against the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.5839 of 2025 by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is pending on the file of the learned XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, this Court directs the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.11.2023 and pass appropriate orders on the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment in the appeal in A.S.No.168 of 2024.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
07.11.2025 SRM Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet :Yes :Yes/No 5/6
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
SRM To
1. The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, CEDC- North, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
3. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, EB Road, Moolakadai, Perambur.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Div-64, TNGEDCO, Perambur West, Chennai.
07.11.2025 6/6