S.Vennila v. The Supervising Engineer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P(MD)No.24177 of 2016 S.Vennila ... Petitioner vs.

1)The Supervising Engineer, Sivagangai.

2)The Executive Engineer, Distribution, Karaikudi.

3)The Assistant Executive Engineer(Urban), Karaikudi.

4)The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Kallal, Sivagangai District.

5)R.Ramanathan ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide the new EB Connection for the newly constructed house for the residential purpose located in Paganeri, Door No.428/B in survey number 167/3 Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District, with considering the petitioner's Application submitted on 03.11.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balamuruganantham For R1 to R4 : Ms.M.Rajeshwari for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha

ORDER

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to provide new electricity connection for the newly constructed house for the residential purpose located in Paganeri, Door No.428/B in Survey No.167/3, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District, considering the petitioner's Application submitted on 03.11.2016.

2.The prayer sought for by the petitioner is pre-matured, as there is an objection by the 5th respondent. That apart, by proceedings dated 07.11.2016, after receipt of the petitioner's application dated 03.11.2016, she has been asked to submit the records available with her to show that she is the owner of the property to which, electricity connection is sought for and that the said documents have been directed to be produced within a period of seven days, so that, a decision could be taken by the Board. Already, the respondent Electricity Board acted on the application of the petitioner dated 03.11.2016, by asking for certain details from the petitioner. Apart from that, from the records, it appears that a civil suit is also pending. The 5th respondent/private party, who has given objection, has to be heard by the Electricity Board, before taking any decision on the application of the petitioner.

3.Hence, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner as such, cannot be granted. It is open to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the request of the petitioner and take a decision after hearing the petitioner and the 5th respondent.

Therefore, the relief sought for to effect electricity connection based on the application dated 03.11.2016, cannot be acceded for the present.

With the above observation and direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar nbi To 1)The Supervising Engineer, Sivagangai.

2)The Executive Engineer,Distribution, Karaikudi.

3)The Assistant Executive Engineer(Urban), Karaikudi.

4)The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Kallal, Sivagangai District.

+1cc to Mr.R.BALAMURUGANANTHAM Advocate Sr.No. 81246 JAM/09.01.2017/SKN/SAR 1/3P-6C W.P(MD)No.24177 of 2016 16.12.2016