M.Manikandhan Vs The Chief Engineer / Distribution

M.Manikandhan vs The Chief Engineer / Distribution

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 27, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1434091

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/1434091
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani
Decided On: Mar 27, 2026
Case Number: WP/11633/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Manikandhan

Respondent

The Chief Engineer / Distribution

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 27-03-2026coramthe hon'ble mr justice m.dhandapani m.manikandhan s/o.mani, no.63, kandhadu new street, kandhadu post and village, ..petitioner(s) vs ..respondent(s) petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the electric rod and consider petitioner representation dated 02.03.2026 page1 of 4 for petitioner(s): m/s.mm law associates for respondent(s): mr.venkata seshaiyaorderthis writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the electric rod by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2026.2. heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. with the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner hasmade a representation to the respondents on 02.03.2026 for removal of electric rod and electric line fixed overhead of his hut bearing eb connection consumer no.662 by the respondents, which is likely to cause fire accidents, however there was no response and hence, the present petition.4. per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submittedthat the order has already been passed by the respondents on the petitioner’s representation dated 02.03.2026, but the same was not communicated to the petitioner. page2 of 45. in view of the submissions made by the respective learned counsels,this court closes the writ petition as nothing survives for further adjudication in the matter since the respondents has passed orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 02.03.2026. the respondents are directed to communicate the order passed by the respondents to the petitioner. there shall be no order as to costs.index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no dp to page3 of 4m.dhandapani, j.dp page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI M.Manikandhan S/o.Mani, No.63, Kandhadu New Street, Kandhadu Post and Village, ..Petitioner(s) Vs ..Respondent(s) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the electric rod and consider petitioner representation dated 02.03.2026 Page1 of 4 For Petitioner(s): M/s.MM Law Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.Venkata Seshaiya

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the electric rod by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2026.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has

made a representation to the respondents on 02.03.2026 for removal of electric rod and electric line fixed overhead of his hut bearing EB Connection Consumer No.662 by the respondents, which is likely to cause fire accidents, however there was no response and hence, the present Petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

that the order has already been passed by the respondents on the petitioner’s representation dated 02.03.2026, but the same was not communicated to the petitioner. Page2 of 4

5. In view of the submissions made by the respective learned counsels,

this Court closes the Writ Petition as nothing survives for further adjudication in the matter since the respondents has passed orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 02.03.2026. The respondents are directed to communicate the order passed by the respondents to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No DP To Page3 of 4

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

DP Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties M.Manikandhan vs The Chief Engineer / Distribution Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani