Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2142 (MAD)

R. Gandhimathi v. District Collector Krishnagiri

2014-07-16

B.RAJENDRAN

body2014
Judgment 1. Heard, Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vasan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on the representation dated 10.2.2014 seeking cancellation of the Electricity Service Connection in S.C. No.3419 on merits. 3. According to the petitioner, she purchased the property at S.No.172/1A to an extent of about 1 acre and 0.55 cents for valuable sale consideration from Mrs. Palaniammal, W/o. K.R. Chinnaraj, the predecessor in title who had purchased the same through D.No.374/1986. On account of certain dispute, the third respondent, the son of the said Palaniammal, filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 seeking for specific performance and for permanent injunction and the same was allowed. Against which, A.S.Nos.46 and 91 of 2006 were filed by the petitioner and others and the same was allowed. S.L.P.No.18051 and 18052 of 2013 filed by the third respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed by affirming the judgment of this Court and thereby dismissing the suit filed by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property till date. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 10.2.2014 seeking cancellation of the Electricity Service Connection in S.C.No.3419. Since the same has not been considered by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.2.2014. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that if suitable time is given, the concerned official is ready to consider the representation dated 10.2.2014 submitted by the petitioner and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due notice to all parties concerned. 6. Though notice was served on the third respondent and his name has been printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through his counsel. None appears on behalf of the third respondent. 7. 6. Though notice was served on the third respondent and his name has been printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through his counsel. None appears on behalf of the third respondent. 7. Taking into consideration of the limited prayer, especially, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.2.2014 alone, this Court only directs that the immediate superior of the second respondent concerned, shall consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.2.2014 and pass orders, after giving due notice to the parties concerned including the third respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction and observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.