Madras High CourtWP(MD)/5892/2017dismissed

V.Samuel v. The Superintendent Engineer

2017-04-18Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.04.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.(MD).No.5892 of 2017 V.Samuel Through his Power Agent G.Vincent Theogaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent Engineer.

Distribution, TANGEDCO, Tuticorin District, 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, TANGEDCO, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2017 and permit the petitioner to pay the actual dues within a time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. Antony S Prabhakar For Respondents : Mr. A.U.Ramanathan Standing Counsel for TNEB ***

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed for directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2017 and permit the petitioner to pay the actual dues within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. In the order of the Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, a direction was issued to the Deputy Registrar, Murappanadu, Tuticorin District not to register any sale of the property of the petitioner. This direction was issued pursuant to an assessment and demand made by the respondent against the petitioner for the sum of rupees eight lakhs.

4. The petitioner has made a representation on 10.02.2017 after a long time ignoring the assessment made against the petitioner for recovery and repeated demands. Since the petitioner has not come forward with clean hands to conclusion, this court is not inclined to entertain the petition as the liability is not in dispute. After the assessment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and demand, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents requesting them to specify the actual consumption charges for which the petitioner is liable. This is nothing but unfair on the part of the petitioner. No such indulgence can be shown to person like the petitioner who has to approached this court suppressing material particulars.

5. In this circumstances, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent Engineer.

Distribution, TANGEDCO, Tuticorin District, 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, TANGEDCO, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District.

W.P.(MD).No.5892 of 2017 18.04.2017 SM:CP kk/SKN/02.05.2017-2P-3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/