Manikandan v. The Executive Engineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 02.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Manikandan

...Petitioner

versus

1. The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance TANGEDCO, Four Road, Perambalur, Perambalur District

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance TANGEDCO, Krishnapuram, Perambalur District

3. Ravi

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner and his family for the death of petitioner's father Thangavel, who died on 19.03.2025 due to electrocution within a stipulated time. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.D.Suresh Kumar for R1 and R2

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner and his family for the death of his father Thangavel, who died on 19.03.2025 due to electrocution.

2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has taken the lands belonging to the Mariamman Temple on lease and cultivating tomato crops in the said lands. In order to protect the said crops from animals, the 3rd respondent has illegally erected electric fence surrounding the lands, while being so, the petitioner's father in order to prevent the cattle from grazing the 3rd respondent's lands stepped over the electric wire and died instantly due to electrocution. Since the respondents 1 and 2 have kept quiet by not taking action against the 3rd respondent, who had erected electric fence unauthorisedly, the petitioner made a representation requesting to pay compensation for the death of the petitioner's father. Since no action has been initiated, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it 2/4

would suffice for this Court to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that sufficient time may be granted to consider the representation of the petitioner.

6. In view of the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court hereby directs the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2025 on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

02.09.2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking /Non speaking Judgment ssd M.DHANDAPANI, J., ssd 3/4

To

1. The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance TANGEDCO, Four Road, Perambalur, Perambalur District

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance TANGEDCO, Krishnapuram, Perambalur District 02.09.2025 4/4