Kamaraj Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar and Others

Kamaraj vs The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 13, 2016

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191466

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1191466
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: B. Rajendran
Decided On: Apr 13, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD)No.7216 of 2016 & WMP(MD)No. 6133 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kamaraj

Respondent

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar and Others

Excerpt

.....of the department. 2. according to petitioner, he has filed a civil suit in o.s.no. 257 of 2005 before the district munsif court, virudhunagar, for declaration to declare that the suit scheduled property is a public road. earlier, he had obtained interim injunction. the interim order has already been vacated or not extended. thereafter, no interim order obtained. earlier, he filed another writ petition before this court in w.p(md)no.3469 of 2015 seeking for the very same relief stating that the authority should not put up or remove the poles. at that time, the department submits that there is no such proposal. therefore, the said writ petition has been closed. 3. now, a show-cause notice has been issued, wherein, the petitioner has been directed to establish whether the electricity poles are situated in a pathway and directed to produce the documents. aggrieved against the show-cause notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner is before this court. 4. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. first of all, this writ petition is not maintainable. it is only a show-cause notice. the petitioner has got ample rights to appear before the authorities concerned and produce the documents to establish his claim as to whether the road in question is a public pathway or not. secondly, in the suit in o.s.no.257 of 2005 , the electricity board is not a party. thirdly, even according to him, the interim order already been vacated. therefore, the pendency of the suit is not a bar for the department to seek explanation from the petitioner regarding the nature of the property. the authority will give ample opportunity to the petitioner on his objections and pass appropriate authorities on the same on merits and in accordance with law. 6. accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Oo.Mi.Pou/Na/Ki/Viru/Kou.Kattu/ A.No.158/16 dated 02.04.2016 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary violation of law and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to change the physical features of the electric poles in Ward No.18 T.S.No.487 to 493 493/1B 493/1C2 473/1C3 of Kathalambatti Virudhunagar Municipal Limit Virudhunagar District.)

1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the show-cause notice of the Department.

2. According to petitioner, he has filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 257 of 2005 before the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, for declaration to declare that the suit scheduled property is a public road. Earlier, he had obtained interim injunction. The interim order has already been vacated or not extended. Thereafter, no interim order obtained. Earlier, he filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.3469 of 2015 seeking for the very same relief stating that the authority should not put up or remove the poles. At that time, the Department submits that there is no such proposal. Therefore, the said writ petition has been closed.

3. Now, a show-cause notice has been issued, wherein, the petitioner has been directed to establish whether the electricity poles are situated in a pathway and directed to produce the documents. Aggrieved against the show-cause notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. First of all, this writ petition is not maintainable. It is only a show-cause notice. The petitioner has got ample rights to appear before the authorities concerned and produce the documents to establish his claim as to whether the road in question is a public pathway or not. Secondly, in the suit in O.S.No.257 of 2005 , the Electricity Board is not a party. Thirdly, even according to him, the interim order already been vacated. Therefore, the pendency of the suit is not a bar for the Department to seek explanation from the petitioner regarding the nature of the property. The authority will give ample opportunity to the petitioner on his objections and pass appropriate authorities on the same on merits and in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Kamaraj vs The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricit... Same Subject Education Same Judge B. Rajendran