Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sampangi Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

Sampangi vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Apr 29, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1437637

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WMP/12807/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sampangi

Respondent

The Assistant Executive Engineer

Excerpt

.....the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of m/s.s.c.vishwanth, advocate for the petitioner and of m/s.l.jai venkatesh, standing counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent, the court made the following order:- the writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2022, wherein, a sum of rs.38,85,620/- (rupees thirty eight lakhs eighty five thousand six hundred and twenty only) is demanded in view of the alleged theft of electricity.2. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,that the petitioner is the owner of the land in s.no.75/2c and 72/4 and the adjacent land in s.no.71/2, to an extent of 0.30 cents in bukkasagaram village, the said property in question was given on lease in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is no longer in occupation of the premises. there was an inspection by the 1st respondent on 07.12.2021 and during the course of the inspection, it was allegedly found that the electricity meter boxes have been tampered and there has been theft of electricity.3. it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat alleged theft found in inspection , if any, is only by the lessee i.e., the 2nd respondent. it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the electricity connection has been disconnected and the same has caused undue hardship to the petitioner, and thus prays for restoration.4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents thatthe petitioner's request for restoration of electricity may be considered if he pays 50% of the aforesaid amount as an interim measure, to which the petitioner counsel submitted that he is ready to pay rs.8,00,000/-.5. on considering the above submission of the learned counselfor the petitioner and the respondents, this court is of the view that as an interim measure the petitioner is directed to pay 30% of the demand made vide proceedings of the 1st respondent in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Special Original Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the First day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ SAMPANGI [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, [ RESPONDENTS ] 2 M/S.SANTHOSH CONSTRUCTIONS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR VASANTHA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.28/141, VATTARAVALARCHI COLONY, KRISHNAGIRI MAIN ROAD, DHARMAPURI TALUK AND DISTRICT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order in proceedings, Ka. En. Uu. Se. Po / Ee. Pa / Bagalur / Ko. Minthiruttu / No. 645-1 / 21-22, Dated 28.01.22 on the file of the 1st respondent [IN WMP.No.12807/2022] pending disposal of the above WP.No.13596/2022

Order : This Miscellaneous petition coming on this day for

hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.C.VISHWANTH, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.L.JAI VENKATESH, STANDING COUNSEL on behalf of the 1st Respondent, the court made the following order:- The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2022, wherein, a sum of Rs.38,85,620/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty only) is demanded in view of the alleged theft of electricity.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

that the petitioner is the owner of the land in S.No.75/2C and 72/4 and the adjacent land in S.No.71/2, to an extent of 0.30 cents in Bukkasagaram village, the said property in question was given on lease in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is no longer in occupation of the premises. There was an inspection by the 1st respondent on 07.12.2021 and during the course of the inspection, it was allegedly found that the electricity meter boxes have been tampered and there has been theft of electricity.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that alleged theft found in inspection , if any, is only by the lessee i.e., the 2nd respondent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the electricity connection has been disconnected and the same has caused undue hardship to the petitioner, and thus prays for restoration.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that

the petitioner's request for restoration of electricity may be considered if he pays 50% of the aforesaid amount as an interim measure, to which the petitioner counsel submitted that he is ready to pay Rs.8,00,000/-.

5. On considering the above submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is of the view that as an interim measure the petitioner is directed to pay 30% of the demand made vide proceedings of the 1st respondent in Ka.En.Uu.Se.Po/Ee.Pa/Bagalur/Ko.Minthiruttu/No.645-1/21-22 dated 28.01.2022 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. On complying with the above condition by the petitioner, as

an interim measure, the 1st respondent is directed to restore the electricity connection forthwith on payment of 30% of the demand made vide impugned notice. It is made clear that the payment of 30% of the demand vide proceedings dated 28.01.2022 shall be made not later than 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

7. Post the matter after four weeks.

-sd/- / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, C.C. to M/S.S.C.VISHWANTH, Advocate, SR.No.4194/2022.

Order

in Date :01/06/2022 From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format RA 15/06/2022

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial