T.Baskaran v. The Superintending Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.3486 of 2019 Baskaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO), Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Ooragam, Elayangudi, Sivagangai District.

3.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Ooragam, Elayangudi, Sivagangai District.

4.S.Chinnapillai.

... Respondents 1/4

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection passed by him vide his proceedings in Ka.No.UMiPo/Uragam/Ilai/Ko.Kattu/A.No.1764/12, dated 20.09.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 1 & 2 to disconnect the electricity connection provided to the bore well of the fourth respondent situated in Survey No.298/2B of Karaikudi Village, Ilayangudi Taluk for violation of the consolidated guidelines in force adopted by the State Ground Water (R2) Department dated 02.03.2012 by providing an opportunity of hearing in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3505/2011, dated 24.02.2012 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For R4 : Mr.Y.Kannan

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The 4th respondent had dug a bore well and had applied for grant of free agricultural electricity service connection. The petitioner lodged 2/4

his objection saying that the bore well dug by the fourth respondent is located near his well. TANGEDCO rejected the petitioner's objections on the ground that the petitioner has not appeared with the requisite document. The stand of TANGEDCO is put to challenge in this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner is having only a regular well and that too has gone dry. The well is only 50 feet deep. The fourth respondent through his counsel states that if in future, the petitioner digs any bore well, the fourth respondent will not lodge any objection.

4. Recording the said undertaking of the fourth respondent, the order impugned in the writ petition is sustained. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

01.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi 3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

rmi W.P.(MD)No.3486 of 2019 01.07.2022 4/4