K.Ajikumar, S/O.Kochu Nadar, v. The Superintending Engineer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.21299 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17566 of 2017 K.Ajikumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintending Engineer, Kanyakumari EDC, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation, (TANGEDCO), Parvathipuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Executive Engineer, Distribution / Nagercoil, Kanyakumari EDC, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation, (TANGEDCO), Kanyakumari District.

3.The Assistant Engineer, O & M/ Vilavancode, Kanyakumari EDC, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation, (TANGEDCO), Kanyakumari District.

4.Srinivasan 5.Valsala 6.Vijayalaxmi 7.Chandraprabha 8.Vasanthakumari 9.Rajendran ... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the Electricity Service Connection in Service No.07-182008-528 stands in the name of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh For R1 to R3 : Ms.Rajeswari for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha For R4 : Mr.K.N.Thambi For R5 & R6 : Unclaimed For R7 to R9 : No appearance

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The petitioner seeks restoration of the petition mentioned service connection. It is seen that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.414 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction, restraining the official respondents herein from disconnecting the electricity connection. The said suit was dismissed on 29.04.2015. 3.This Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether any appeal has been filed. It appears that the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2015, dismissing the O.S.No.414 of 2010 on the file of the II-Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithuai, Kanyakumari District has become final.

4.When the petitioner lost the civil suit after a contest, it is not open to the petitioner to rush to writ Court for restoration of the connection that was cut following the dismissal of the suit. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent also drew my attention to the averments in Paragraph-12 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. It is seen that for the very same relief that is now claimed, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.10330 of 2017. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would claim that it dismissed with liberty. But then, the order copy does not reflect the same. Therefore, the petitioner claims to have circulated a letter for listing the matter "for being mentioned". 7.But the fact remains that till date, the order dismissing the petitioner's earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10330 of 2017 remains dismissed as withdrawn without any grant of liberty. So long as the said order is unvaried, the present writ petition is not

maintainable. For both the reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) pnn 1CC TO MR. K.N. THAMPI, ADVOCATE SR 56783 KK 10/04/2019 3P 2C W.P.(MD)No.21299 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17566 of 2017