Madras High CourtWP(MD)/7776/2017dismissed

Srinivasan, S/O.Seeni Naicker v. The Superintending Engineer

2022-06-17Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

W.P.(MD)No.7776 of 2017 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.7776 of 2017 Srinivasan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Aruppukottai.

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Aruppukottai.

4.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) Palayampatti, Virudhunagar.

... Respondents 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 relating to the impugned order nr.ngh/gfph;/mU/njh.E.c3/Nfh.jghy; /m.vz;.033/17, dated 01.02.2017 and quash the same, consequently, direct the respondents to pay necessary compensation to the petitioner on the death of the petitioner's wife namely Gangammal due to electric shock on 05.11.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioner's wife died due to electrocution on 05.11.2015. The petitioner seeks compensation. But in the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD)No.7776 of 2017 communication, it has been made clear that the occurrence took place on account of the conduct of the petitioner's family and that there is no negligence on the part of the officials of TANGEDCO. I am not in a position to adjudicate this factual controversy. The petitioner has to necessarily lead evidence before the jurisdictional civil Court.

The occurrence took place on 05.11.2015. The Writ Petition was filed in April 2017. If the petitioner files civil suit, the period taken in pursuing the writ remedy will be excluding while computing the limitation. If the petitioner files a civil suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, limitation will not be a bar for the petitioner to pursue his remedy.

3. With this liberty to the petitioner, the Writ Petition stand dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. All the respective contentions of the parties are left open.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) // True Copy // /07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Rmi +1 CC to M/s.S. DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate ( SR-26711[F] dated 20/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.V. SASI KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-27209[F] dated 21/06/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.7776 of 2017 17.06.2022 ck(CO) TR(04.07.2022) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2