Madras High CourtWP/14059/2018dismissed

Mrs.V.Sundari, v. The Special Secretary

2022-04-07Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.No.14059 of 2018 Mrs.V.Sundari, W/o. Vellikannu ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Special Secretary (Revenue) cum The District Collector, Puducherry.

2. The Deputy Collector (Revenue) South, Revenue Complex, Villianur, Puducherry - 605 110.

3. Tahsildar, Office of the Collectorate, Villianur, Puducherry.

4. The Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Board, Villianur, Puducherry.

5. The Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Electricity Department, Kariamanickam, Puducherry.

6. Pitchaiyammal, W/o. Egambaram

7. Pandurangam ... Respondents Prayer :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th and 5th respondents to disconnect the illegal electricity connection standing in the name of the 6th respondent Pitchaiyammal, W/o. Egambaram, S/o. Seenan.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Usha Ramman For Respondents :

Mr.V.Balamurugane, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondy.) for R1 to R5 Mr.Kamalakumar for R6 and R7

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction directing the respondents 4 and 5 to disconnect the electricity connection stands in the name of 6th respondent.

2. The grievance of petitioner is that, she is the absolute owner of the property and somehow, the 6th respondent has managed to obtain patta and based on that, she has obtained electricity service connection in her name. Subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioner, the patta granted in favour of 6th respondent has been cancelled. In the said circumstances, she has approached the respondents 4 and 5 to disconnect the service connection, but, so far, the service connection was not disconnected. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Mr.Kamalakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7, would submit that, against the order of cancelling patta, she has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is still pending.

4. Heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records carefully.

5. Considering the fact that, appeal filed against the order of cancelling patta is pending, at this stage, unless the appeal is disposed of, the petitioner cannot seek the present relief. Hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew the application after disposal of appeal pending before 2nd respondent. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpp