Karuppaiah P v. The Chief Engineer

ORDER Heard both sides.

¶2The petitioner's counsel informs the Court that writ prayer has been wrongly worded. The petitioner is only seeking fresh connection.

¶3The learned standing counsel informs the Court that if the petitioner complies with all the usual formalities such as production of the title deed or valid proof of possession and if there is no other legal impediment, service connection would be granted.

¶4Recording the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

03.11.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

03.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN P.Karuppaiah ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO, Chief Engineer Office, Old Bus Stand, Pudukkottai. 2.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner's electricity service connection in S.C.No. 200061830523356 as per the receipt in receipt No.PGCCAN5282246405 dated 17.05.2023 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Arunkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan for R1 & R2