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.

D.P.Nandakumar. Vs. the Superintending Engineer.

D.P.Nandakumar. vs The Superintending Engineer.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 16, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927158

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No.9734 of 2012
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

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

Constitution

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D.P.Nandakumar.

Advocate Mr.A.Thirunavukkarasu, Adv.

Respondent

The Superintending Engineer.

Advocate Mr.P.Gunaraj, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

writ petition  is filed under article 226 of constitution of india   praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation/application dated 16.12.2011 and to issue e.b. connection in favour of the petitioner and to pass orders on the representation within the stipulated period.order1. this writ petition  is filed  praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation/application dated 16.12.2011 and to issue e.b. connection in favour of the petitioner and to pass orders on the representation within the stipulated period.2. mr.p.gunaraj, learned counsel representing mr.g.vasudevan,  takes notice on behalf of the respondents electricity board.  by consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. mr.p.gunaraj, learned counsel for the respondents on instruction from the first respondent assistant engineer, who is present in court, produced a copy of proceedings  no.f/vz; 2/bgh/,8-g-byl;rkpg[uk; gphpt[-nfhg;g[ vz; 42-m/vz; 418-11?12 dated 26.11.2011.   the copy of the proceedings is served on the counsel for the petitioner today.4. in view of the above proceedings passed by the second respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.5.  the writ petition is disposed of as above.   no costs.

Full Judgment

Writ Petition  is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India   praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation/application dated 16.12.2011 and to issue E.B. Connection in favour of the petitioner and to pass orders on the representation within the stipulated period.

ORDER

1. This Writ Petition  is filed  praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation/application dated 16.12.2011 and to issue E.B. Connection in favour of the petitioner and to pass orders on the representation within the stipulated period.

2. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Vasudevan,  takes notice on behalf of the respondents electricity board.  By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel for the respondents on instruction from the first respondent Assistant Engineer, who is present in Court, produced a copy of proceedings  No.f/vz; 2/bgh/,8-g-byl;Rkpg[uk; gphpt[-nfhg;g[ vz; 42-m/vz; 418-11?12 dated 26.11.2011.   The copy of the proceedings is served on the counsel for the petitioner today.

4. In view of the above proceedings passed by the second respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

5.  The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.   No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial