Madras High CourtWP/1321/2024dismissed

M.G.Gopal v. The Chairman

2025-03-19Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.G.GOPAL ... Petitioner Vs 1.

THE CHAIRMAN, TANGEDCO, MOUNT ROAD, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI- 600 002.

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CEDC/ SOUTH, 110 KV, KK NAGAR, SS COMPLEX, KK NAGAR, CHENNAI- 600 078.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TANGEDCO, MUDICHUR ROAD, POOTHUTHANGAL, TAMBARAM, CHENNAI- 600 045.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-600 009.

DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, URBAN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CAMPUS, MRC NAGAR, CHENNAI- 600 028.

THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN BUILDING, NO.1, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008.

... Respondents 1/5

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first to third respondents to remove the entire transformer installed in front of the gate of the petitioner. For Petitioner : No appearance For R1 to R3 : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh For R4 & R5 : Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader For R6 : Mr.C.Manoharan

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to direct the first to third respondents to remove the entire transformer installed in front of the gate of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the transformer is erected by the respondents right in front of the gate of his property and therefore, they are liable to shift the same.

3. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit.

4. It is their case that the petitioner already has two gates for ingress and egress for his property. After the transformer was installed, the petitioner 2/5

willfully put up a third gate adjacent to the transformer only to contend that the transformer is installed in front of the gate.

5. I have considered the rival case of the parties and perused the material records of the case.

6. When it is the case of the respondents that the gate was put up mischievously only to remove the transformer, no reply is filed to the counter affidavit and no materials is produced by the petitioner to the contrary. Further, it can be seen that in respect of the very same cause of action to remove the very same transformer, the petitioner has filed civil suit in O.S.No.3488 of 2017 on the file of the 14th Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai and the said suit was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021.

7. In view thereof, there is no merits in the case and th writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

19.03.2025 veda 3/5

To 1.