Ragupathi v. Perambalur District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-“The impugned order dated 10
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- The impugned order dated 10.12.2025, shall be treated as a show cause https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2750 of 2026__________Page5 of 6notice and the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a…
Judgment
WP No. 2750 of 2026__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAWP No. 2750 of 2026and WMP.No.3006 of 2026 Ragupathi..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Superintendent Engineer /DistributionTamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perambalur.
The Executive EngineerTamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perambalur.
The Assistant Executive EngineerTamil Nadu Electricity Board, Siruvachur, Perambalur District.
The Junior Executive Engineer(operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TNPDCL),Chettikulam, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2750 of 2026__________Page2 of 6Perambalur District...Respondent(s)Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling entire records order passed by the 4th Respondent Ka.No.E.Mi.Po/E.Ka/ Chittikulam/Ko.Mi.V/Aa.No.274/25 dated 10.12.2025 and quash the same consequently to direct the Respondents to restore the electricity connection bearing service connection No.341-005-45, Chathiramanai Village. For Petitioner(s):Mr.C.SaravananFor Respondent(s):Mr.D.Suresh KumarORDERThe above Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
calling entire records order passed by the 4th Respondent Ka.No.E.Mi.Po/E.Ka/ Chittikulam/Ko.Mi.V/Aa.No.274/25 dated 10.12.2025 and quash the same consequently to direct the Respondents to restore the electricity connection bearing service connection No.341-005-45, Chathiramanai Village.
2.
The case of the petitioner is that after the demise of his father, he and his brother have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties purchased by their father, comprised in Survey Nos. 245/1, 246/3 and 246/4, situate at Chathiramani Village, Perambalur Taluk and District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2750 of 2026__________Page3 of 6Subsequently, a partition was effected between the petitioner and his brother, whereby the property comprised in Survey No. 246/2, measuring 24.50 ares, fell to the share of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and is carrying on agricultural activities therein. The petitioner has an electricity service connection bearing No. 341-005-45 for the said property. In order to protect his crops from wild animals, the petitioner has put up fencing around the property.3. While so, on 09.12.2025, a case was registered against the petitioner by the police authorities based on a complaint given by the 4th respondent, alleging that the petitioner had drawn an illegal electricity connection from the electricity box to the fencing around his land, thereby converting it into an electrified fence, and that one Nallusami allegedly came into contact with the said electrical fencing and died due to electrocution.4.
The petitioner’s grievance is that on 10.12.2025, his electricity service connection bearing No. 341-005-45 has been disconnected by the 4th respondent without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to him. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2750 of 2026__________Page4 of 65. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the 4th Respondent on the ground that his service connection was disconnected without issuing any prior notice and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that on 09.12.2025 at about 06.00 p.m., the petitioner had allegedly drawn electricity illegally from the starter box standing in the name of his father and connected the same to an electric fence, as a result of which one Nallusami died due to electrocution. This illegal activity of the petitioner compelled the 4th respondent to disconnect the electricity service connection.
In such circumstances, the action of the 4th respondent in disconnecting the electricity service connection cannot be found fault with, insofar as the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in illegal tapping of electricity. Be that as it may, the 4th respondent ought to have subsequently issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. Admittedly, no such notice has been issued.
Operative part
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
The impugned order dated 10.12.2025, shall be treated as a show cause https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2750 of 2026__________Page5 of 6notice and the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of one week from today. Thereafter, the 4th Respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.02-02-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSHRTo1.The Superintendent Engineer /DistributionTamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perambalur. 2. The Executive EngineerTamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perambalur. 3. The Assistant Executive EngineerTamil Nadu Electricity Board, Siruvachur, Perambalur District. 4. The Junior Executive Engineer(operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TNPDCL),Chettikulam, Perambalur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 2750 of 2026__________Page6 of 6P.T.ASHA, J.SHRWP No. 2750 of 202602-02-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-“The impugned order dated 10
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.