M/s.Arcot Sabith Alisha Makkan Masjit v. The Chairman-cum-Managing DirectorTamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Arcot, Ranipet District...Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4965 of 2023__________Page2 of 4Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1st to 3rd to consider…
Judgment
WP No. 4965 of 2023__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 4965 of 2023andWMP.No.4974 of 2023M/s.Arcot Sabith Alisha Makkan Masjit, Kudiyiruppu Vaasigal Nala Sangam, Registration No.29/2022, Rep. by its President N.Mubarak, No.55, Second Street, Sabith Alisha Nagar, Chennai-Bengaluru Bye Pass Road, Arcot, Ranipet District...Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Chairman-cum-Managing DirectorTamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), (Supply and Distribution-City/West), Arcot , Ranipet District.
Operative part
The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Arcot, Ranipet District...Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4965 of 2023__________Page2 of 4Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1st to 3rd to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representations dated 30.01.2023 and consequently directing the 1st and 3rd respondents herein to give the necessary Electricity Service Connection to the members Petitioner’s Association at Sabith Alisha Nagar, Chennai-Bengaluru Bye Pass Road, Arcot, Ranipet District. For Petitioner(s):No AppearanceFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.Madhusudharan Standing Counsel ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1st to 3rd to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representations dated 30.01.2023 and consequently directing the 1st and 3rd respondents herein to give the necessary Electricity Service Connection to the members Petitioner’s Association at Sabith Alisha Nagar, Chennai-Bengaluru Bye Pass Road, Arcot, Ranipet District.2. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not present, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the electricity connection has already been effected therefore, the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4965 of 2023__________Page3 of 43. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.26-03-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoKKNTo1.The Chairman-cum-Managing DirectorTamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), (Supply and Distribution-City/West), Arcot , Ranipet District. 3. The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Arcot, Ranipet District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4965 of 2023__________Page4 of 4KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.KKNWP No. 4965 of 202326-03-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
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.