Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2090 (MAD)

Chandran v. Superintending Engineer

2014-07-14

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the Electricity Service Line crossing over the petitioner's property. 2. It appears that the third respondent objected to grant the electricity connection for the residential purpose of the petitioner and the same was granted in the year 2004 in electricity service connection No.181. According to the petitioner, she proposed to put up a construction in her property and the electricity line is a hindrance for the proposed construction. Therefore, the petitioner sought for removing of the electricity connection lines. Though the petitioner seeks for removal, such prayer cannot be granted and the proper prayer would be for shifting the electricity lines. 3. The petitioner claims to have been submitting representation from 2004 onwards. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, there is no proof to show that any one of the representations have been submitted to the respondents 1 and 2. In any event, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code provides an application to be submitted for shifting the lines. Thus, from the averments made by the petitioner, it is seen that the averments that she submitted her application in 2001 is not borne out of records. Therefore, the petitioner shall submit her application to the second respondent. 4. In the light of the stand taken by the third respondent in the counter affidavit stating that there is no objection, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass orders for shifting the electricity connection and so that it will not run through the petitioner's property. On preparing the report, the petitioner shall be intimated and thereafter, the petitioner shall remit the amount determined by the Board and the second respondent shall shift the lines in question with least inconvenience to the third respondent. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.