Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1364 (MAD)

Thangam v. Lilly Whites & Others

2005-08-17

P.SATHASIVAM, S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment :- (Prayer: - This writ appeal is directed against the order of this court made in WP.No.4426/2005 dated 25.5.2005.) P. Sathasivam, J. 1. By consent of all the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.5.2005 made in WP.No.4426/2005. 3. In the light of the order to be passed here under, it is not necessary for us to refer to all the factual matrix as arrayed. 4. The 1st respondent herein approached this court by way of WP.No.4426/2005, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent therein, viz, the Superintending Engineer, Wind Energy Development, Tirunelveli to provide electricity service connection to their Wind Mill, situated in SF.No.720, Karungulam Village, Radapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District for commissioning of Wind Mill Electric Generator (WEG) forthwith. 5. The learned single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner therein (1st respondent herein) and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as well as taking note of the opinion of the Legal Cell of the Electricity Board and also considering the pendency of the civil suit in OS.No.209/2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Valliyur and after observing that there should be no impediment for the Electricity Department in providing service connection to the petitioner therein, allowed the said Writ Petition. In the same order, the learned single Judge has directed the petitioner therein to furnish an undertaking and an indemnity bond as suggested in the opinion of the Legal Cell of the Board dated 10.5.2005. Questioning the said order, the appellant, who is the third party, after securing leave of this court, has filed the above writ appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant, by drawing our attention to the orders passed in CRP (PD) No.1025 and 1026 of 2004, would contend that the 1st respondent is not justified in not impleading the appellant in her Writ Petition. He also contended that the learned single Judge is not justified in issuing direction to the Electricity Board for granting service connection. As observed earlier, there is no dispute that OS.No.975/2002 filed by the vendor of the 1st respondent herein against the appellant/defendant is still pending. He also contended that the learned single Judge is not justified in issuing direction to the Electricity Board for granting service connection. As observed earlier, there is no dispute that OS.No.975/2002 filed by the vendor of the 1st respondent herein against the appellant/defendant is still pending. It is also brought to our notice that the said suit is ripe for trial. It is true that pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the Electricity Board has granted power connection and according the counsel for the 1st respondent, the Wind Mill is being operated as on date. Taking note of all these factual details and in view of the stand taken by the respective parties, we are of the view that ends of justice should be met by directing the learned District Munsif Court, Valliyur to dispose of the suit in OS.No.209/2002, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, we direct all the parties to maintain status-quo as on date, till a final decision is taken in the said suit. With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected WAMP is closed.