← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19790/2021dismissed

D.Dhanasekaran v. The Chief Executive Engineer

2021-09-17Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:17.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.NO.19790 OF 2021 D.Dhanasekaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1 The Chief Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board No. 114 Anna Salai Mount Road Chennai - 600 002.

2 The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Olimugamathupettai Kanchipuram Kanchipuram Taluk and District.

3 The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Periyakuppam Thiruvallur Taluk Thiruvallur District.

4 The Junior Engineer Pandikavavoor Kannigaiper Uthukottai Taluk Thiruvallur.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 19.07.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirumalai For Respondent : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 19.07.2021 and to take a decision within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.M.Thirumalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. It is seen from records that the petitioner had sought for agricultural service connection and had made an application in the year 1998 before the fourth respondent. It is also seen from records that the fourth respondent had sent a communication in the year 2010 asking for the readiness of the petitioner, which was not acted upon and ultimately the petitioner reacted only in the year 2020. It is further seen from the records that the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the third respondent through proceedings dated 23.07.2021 by assigning reasons as to why the electricity service connection cannot be given in favour of the petitioner. This letter has not been put to challenge by the petitioner and the petitioner seems to have made representation before the respondents to consider his request.

4. Once the application made by the petitioner had lapsed and the representation made by the petitioner had been rejected, there is no question of making representation to the respondents and this Court cannot mechanically issue directions to consider the representation unless there is some substance in the representation given by the petitioner.

5. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kst To 1 The Chief Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board No. 114 Anna Salai Mount Road Chennai - 600 002.

2 The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Olimugamathupettai, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram Taluk and District.

3 The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Periyakuppam Thiruvallur Taluk Thiruvallur District.

4 The Junior Engineer, Pandikavavoor Kannigaiper Uthukottai Taluk Thiruvallur.

+1cc to Mr.M.Thirumalai, Advocate, S.R.No.47403 +1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.47820 W.P.No.19790 of 2021 PPA(CO) PM/01/10/2021