← Library
Madras High CourtWP/29784/2025allowed

R.Balaji v. The Chairman

2025-08-18Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH R.Balaji C/o.Rajasekaran ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 8th Floor, TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

2.The Assistant Director, Electricity Board Office, TANGEDCO, O&M/Zone-2, Jalladianpet, Chennai - 600 100.

3.The Executive Engineer, (Assistant Engineer Office), Operation & Maintenance, Electricity Board Office, TANGEDCO, O&M/Zone-2, Jalladianpet, Chennai - 600 100.

4.Govindammal C/o.Gunasekaran ... Respondents [R4 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 18.08.2025 passed in W.M.P.No.34466 of 2025 in W.P.No.29784 of 2025] 1/6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order dated 07.05.2025, KA.NO:U.PO/E&P/J.Pettai/File : reminder letter.A.No:28/2205, passed by the third respondent and quash the same, consequently, direct the third respondent to restore the petitioner old Electricity Connection Consumer No.09-249-251-739, New Consumer No:330-017-709.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh Standing Counsel *****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 07.05.2025 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to restore the service connection of the petitioner in the subject property

2. Heard Mr.P.K.Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject property 2/6

and he applied for service connection and it was granted in his favour. The impleaded fourth respondent started claiming right over the property and hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1020 of 2024 and the said suit is pending. In the mean time, the petitioner received the impugned notice dated 07.05.2025 from the third respondent calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation as to why the service connection should not be disconnected. The petitioner gave his reply dated 09.05.2025. When the same was pending, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17643 of 2025 challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 24.06.2024 and for a consequential direction to survey the subject property. This writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 05.06.2025 by issuing directions.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before the enquiry could be completed, the service connection was disconnected on 19.06.2025. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. The Assistant Engineer has given written instructions to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. On going through the same, it is seen that the second respondent is awaiting for the report of 3/6

the Tahsildar pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17643 of 2025. Hence, a final decision is yet to be taken on the impugned notice dated 07.05.2025.

6. It is not known as to why even before a final decision was taken, the service connection of the petitioner was disconnected. The petitioner has already given his reply and the petitioner has also conveyed the order passed by this Court on 05.06.2025. Hence, the concerned authority should have taken a final decision and only thereafter, the electricity service connection could have been disconnected. Since the disconnection has taken place, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking for necessary relief. There is absolutely no justification for disconnecting the service connection since the proceedings are pending pursuant to the notice issued by the second respondent dated 07.05.2025.

If the second respondent is awaiting for the report of the Tahsildar, that does not mean that the service connection will be disconnected during the pendency of the enquiry. Hence, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to restore the service connection of the petitioner forthwith.

and after getting report from the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, take a final decision on its own merits and in accordance with this law. This writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. 18.08.2025 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm To 1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 8th Floor, TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

2.The Assistant Director, Electricity Board Office, TANGEDCO, O&M/Zone-2, Jalladianpet, Chennai - 600 100.

3.The Executive Engineer, (Assistant Engineer Office), Operation & Maintenance, Electricity Board Office, TANGEDCO, O&M/Zone-2, Jalladianpet, Chennai - 600 100.

4.The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J gm 5/6

18.08.2025 (2/2) 6/6