Selvi v. The District Collector

ORDER By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶2The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in Letter No. Umi.Po/Na/Va.Pal.Ko, Tho.Sa.Mii.E/A No.Nil/2026, dated 01.08.2026, on the short ground that the entire proceedings viz., disconnection of electricity have been initiated on the basis of the alleged communications received by the first respondent.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of hollow blocks under the name and style of "Santhosh Hollow Block Unit" since February, 2026. On 19.05.2026, third respondent issued a communication directing the petitioner to stop the manufacturing activities in view of certain objections raised by the public. He would submit that copies of the said complaints were not furnished to the Page3 of 6 petitioner. Nor was any enquiry conducted. However, the respondent authorities straight away directed the petitioner to stop the manufacturing activity. He would further submit that a detailed explanation was submitted on 23.06.2026, expressing the petitioner's willingness to comply with the statutory requirements and Government norms. Thereafter, the third respondent is stated to have directed the fourth respondent to disconnect the petitioner's electricity service connection. Pursuant thereto, fourth respondent issued a notice dated

13.07.2026, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had not paid the property tax and that there was no valid Panchayat licence for carrying on the aforesaid manufacturing activity.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner had approached the authorities, expressing willingness to remit the applicable taxes and obtain the necessary approvals. However, the respondent authorities did not respond. On 01.08.2026, fourth respondent disconnected the petitioner's electricity service connection on the basis of the directions stated to have been issued by the first respondent, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was put on notice on multiple occasions, including on

19.05.2026 and 13.07.2026. Learned counsel would further submit that despite Page4 of 6 the aforesaid notices, the petitioner has not come forward with the requisite licence or proof of payment of property tax. That apart, the respondents have also received complaints from the neighbouring land owners.

¶6In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities are proceeding on a misconception and insisting upon a licence/permission and that the objections raised by the neighbours are also imaginary inasmuch as the neighbouring lands are all vacant lands.

¶7Having regard to the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the view that the issues raised by the petitioner, including the contention that the neighbouring lands are vacant lands, are questions of fact which require examination by the respondent authorities. This Court does not express any view on the above submissions and leaves it open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the respondent authorities.

¶8In light of the above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to furnish copies of the complaints received against the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy thereof. The petitioner shall submit her reply within a period of one week from the date of furnishing of the said complaints. The respondent authorities shall Page5 of 6 thereafter consider the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with, within a period of one week, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is needless to state that it is open to the petitioner to submit the requisite approvals, licences, sanctions, if any, in support of her request. If any such documents are submitted, the same shall also be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's objections and it is open to the concerned respondents to consider and decide the objections on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶9Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07-08-2026 SHK Page6 of 6

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. SHK To

¶1The District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶2The Block Development Officer Palladam taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶3The Special Officer Manikapuram Panchayath, Tiruppur District.

¶4The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL), Town/North/Palladam. 07-08-2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WP No. 31553 of 2026 and WMP Nos.34682, 34683 and 34684 of 2026 Selvi W/o.Chellasamy, No.3/238 A2, G.N.Nagar, Ammapalayam, Manikapuram road, Palladam, Tiruppur - 641664. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 2. The Block Development Officer Palladam taluk, Tiruppur District. 3. The Special Officer Manikapuram Panchayath, Tiruppur District. 4. The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL), Town/North/Palladam. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his letter No.Umi.Po/Na/Va/Pal/Ko.Tho.Sa.Mii.E/A No. Nil/2026 dated 01.08.2026 and quash the same and consequently directing the 4th respondent to restore the electricity service connection to the petitioner in SC No.228 004 1381. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.V.Logeshwaran Page2 of 6 For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy, AGP for R1 Mr.J.V.Sakthi Baalakrishnan, Government Advocate (Civil Side) for R2 and R3 Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Standing Counsel for R4