B.K.Sivanandham v. The Assistant Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI B.K.Sivanandham Petitioner Vs
1. The Assistant Director TANGEDCO, Uthangarai, Krsihangiri, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO Uthangarai Krishangiri District 3.Arulmigu Kasiviswanathar and Lakshmi Narayanan Perumal Temple, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishangiri District Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents 1 and 2 restore petitioner name for EB connection in SC No 244 situated at Kasiviswanathar and Lakshmi Narayana Temple, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District based on petitioner representation on 10.09.2025.
1/5
For petitioner : Mr.K. Thiruvengadam For respondents : Mr. S. Madhusudhanan for R1 & R2
ORDER
Mr. S. Madhusudhanan, learned counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse order has been passed against the 3rd respondent, notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The relief sought in this writ petition is a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to restore the petitioner's name for EB connection in S.C. No 244 situated at Kasiviswanathar and Lakshmi Narayana Temple, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District based on petitioner's representation on 10.09.2025.
3. It is stated that the petitioner had, during March 1985, entered into an agreement with the trustee of the temple for leasing a vacant site, on which he constructed a shop with a steel roof and has been carrying on his business therein. The petitioner further stated that he had deposited the necessary amount with respondents 1 and 2 and obtained an electricity service connection in S.C. No.244 in his name during the year 1985, which was subsequently renewed in 1991, along with the renewal of the tenancy for the said vacant site. 2/5
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, without issuing any prior notice or conducting any enquiry, the respondents have unilaterally changed the electricity service connection in S.C. No.244 to the name of the 3rd respondent, though it originally stood in his name. Aggrieved by such action, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if this Court, issues a direction to the official respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 10.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.
6. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
7. In view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.09.2025 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 3/5
8. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.
25.10.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi2 To
1. The Assistant Director TANGEDCO, Uthangarai, Krsihangiri, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO Uthangarai Krishangiri District 3.Arulmigu Kasiviswanathar and Lakshmi Narayanan Perumal Temple, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishangiri District 4/5
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
vsi2 25.10.2025 5/5