Mr.Champalairanawat, v. The Chairman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE:26.05.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.18365 of 2016 Champalal Ranawat .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chairman, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

2.The Assistant Engineer, Basin Bridge Office, Sowcarpet, Chennai.

3.Vijayaraj Bhandari .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2016 thereby direct the respondents to provide separate domestic electricity service connection to the petitioner's residential portion situated at No.25/40, 1st Floor, Erullapan Street, Near Elephant Gate, Chennai - 600 079 in the petitioner's name.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar 1 & 2 Standing Counsel for TNEB

O R D E R

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner claims that he is tenant under Mr.Vijayaraj Bhandari, S/o.Balachand Bhandari, No.25/40, 2nd Floor, Erullapan Street, Near Elephant Gate, Chennai-79, in respect of the first floor of the same premises bearing Door No.25/40 and all of a sudden, amenities, namely, electricity supply and water connection has been disconnected. The petitioner in this regard, has approached the XIV Judge, Court

of Small Causes, Chennai, by filing M.P.No.339 of 2012 in R.C.O.P.No.1496 of 2012 and obtained an order for restoration of the amenities; however the said order has not been complied with. Therefore, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.14213 of 2015 and this Court, vide order dated 17.06.2015, has directed the Inspector of Police, C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai-79 to grant sufficient protection to the petitioner for restoration of water supply connection and accordingly, it was restored.

3. The grievance now expressed by the petitioner is that the electricity supply has not been restored and in this regard, he has submitted a representation dated 16.05.2016 to the respondents 1 and 2 and since no orders have been passed, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition.

4. Heard the submissions of Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

5. Though the petitioner prayed for a larger prayer, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going in to the merits of the same, permits the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents 1 and 2 with a copy marked to the third respondent along with a copy of this order, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider the said representation in accordance with law, after putting on notice to the third respondent, who is the landlord of the premises and pass orders within a further period of two weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent.

6. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.

vj2/gya Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

1. The Chairman, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

2.The Assistant Engineer, Basin Bridge Office, Sowcarpet, Chennai.

+ 1 cc to Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate Sr 28798 KR/2/6/16 W.P.No.18365 of 2016