A.Paulraj v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.04.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.34344 of 2016 A.Paulraj .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity TANGEDCO OMBUDSMAN 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Marshal Road, Egmore, Chennai - 8.

2.The Executive Engineer/O & M, Chidambaram, Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle TANGEDCO, Anandeeswarar Koil Street, Chidambaram - 608 001.

3.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Cuddalore.

4.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein vide order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Appeal Petition No.58 of 2015 and the second respondent passed in Complaint No.5 of 2015 dated Nil 06/2015 and to quash the same and also direct the third respondent herein to consider the representation dated 18.02.2016 claiming compensation to the teak wood tree illegally cut off and removed.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Balasubramanian For Respondents :

Mr.M.Varunkumar for R1, R2 & R4 Mr.S.Diwakar, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R3

ORDER

Challenging the order of the first respondent dated 19.02.2016 passed in Appeal Petition No.58 of 2015 and the order of the second respondent passed in Complaint No.5 of 2015 dated Nil 06/2015 with a consequential prayer to direct the third respondent to consider the representation dated 18.02.2016, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent.

3.Though the petitioner has sought for a larger relief, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the primary grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the shifting of the electric poles erected by the respondents. 4.Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4, on instructions, would submit that if the petitioner pays necessary charges, his request would be considered positively. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in turn would submit that necessary charges would be paid and in such an eventuality, the shifting will have to be done.

5.Considering the above, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 to effect shifting of the poles on payment of necessary charges by the petitioner. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi

To 1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity TANGEDCO OMBUDSMAN 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Marshal Road, Egmore, Chennai - 8.

2.The Executive Engineer/O & M, Chidambaram, Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle TANGEDCO, Anandeeswarar Koil Street, Chidambaram - 608 001.

3.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Cuddalore.

4.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

+1cc to Mr.M.Varun Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.25597 +1cc to Mr.M.Balasubramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.25546 W.P.No.34344 of 2016 RSI(CO) RS(10/05/2017)