Vedi v. The Divisional Engineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No.14919 of 2025 VEDI ... Petitioner Vs 1.

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

2.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, UTHANGARAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

3.

MARIAMMAL 4.

T. ARUL VEDI ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in connection with the proceedings of Ka.Ea.Se.Po/EPa/Uu.karai/Tho.Nu.Vu.2/Ko.23/No.528/202425 dated 11.11.2024 of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thiruvengadam For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Madhusudanan 1/5

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings in Ka.Ea.Se.Po/EPa/ Uu.karai/ Tho.Nu.Vu.2/Ko.23/No.528/2024-25 dated 11.10.2024.

2. Upon hearing Mr. Thiruvengadam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material records of the case, it can be seen that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents relating to the title of the said well and its usage. Earlier, the fourth respondent, who is now appearing in person before this Court, had filed W.P. No. 20805 & 22030 of 2021. By order dated 25.09.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petitions by directing the parties to produce records to show ownership over the land and directed the authorities to pass final orders thereon.

3. While it is the case of the petitioner that no final orders have been passed. It is the case of the fourth respondent that a final order has been passed by the Chief Engineer on 23.01.2025.

4. Be that as it may, the proceedings now challenged are only in the 2/5

nature of a show cause notice. The petitioner is entitled to produce all documents in support of his case and the authority shall consider the same in accordance with law.

5. Additionally, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has another well and he is also requesting the respondents 1 and 2 to shift the connection to that other well. This claim can also be decided by the second respondent in accordance with law. Needless to mention, the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 shall be heard and orders shall be passed in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy of the order.

6. With the above observation, the writ peition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 16.04.2025 nsl To 3/5

1.

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

2.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, UTHANGARAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

4/5

nsl 16.04.2025 5/5