M.Ramasamy, S/O. Murugesan, v. The Assistant Engineer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Writ Petition(MD)No.24281 of 2018 M.Ramassamy ... Petitioner Vs The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity and Distribution Circle, Operation and Maintenance, Avaniyapuram Circle, Madurai.
... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in f.z;/c.kp.ngh/y/mtdp/t.#/Nfh.ep.k.tof;F/m.vz; 371/14=15 dated 02.12.2014 by the respondent and to quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional consequently provide electricity connection to petitioner's office situated at 433/1 mantahi Thidal, Avaniyapuram, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Moorthy For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel 1/4
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 02.12.2014 passed by the respondent, as illegal and unconstitutional and to direct him to provide the electricity connection to his office situated at 433/1 Manthai Thidal, Avaniyapuram, Madurai.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application dated 08.08.2014 seeking electricity connection to his office, on the ground that he was required to produce a lawful occupation certificate. The petitioner challenges the said order by contending that in the very same survey number, an office of DMK is situated, to which, electricity service connection had been granted and therefore, he must also be accorded the very same privilege.
3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
4. The learned counsel would submit that he had produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai (South) stating that in a half cent of land in S.No.433/1, Kamaraj Memorial is situated, however, the learned counsel has not been able to explain as to how in his representation, he seeks connection to his office and not for the memorial. Admittedly, the property belongs to the Government, the same being a poramboke. Therefore, the respondent was 2/4
correct in demanding the petitioner to provide evidence to show that he is the lawful occupation of the property in question. The certificate, which the petitioner is relied on, does not in any manner show that it is the petitioner, who is in occupation of the said premises. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
22.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes Rmk To The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity and Distribution Circle, Operation and Maintenance, Avaniyapuram Circle, Madurai.
3/4
P.T.ASHA, J.
Rmk Writ Petition(MD)No.24281 of 2018 22.10.2025 4/4