Rajalakshmi v. Pudukkottai District.2.The Assistant Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Ex-Servicemen
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Muthukkannu... RespondentsPRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the electricity service connection bearing Service Connection No.061140151198 obtained by Muthukkannu, wife of Selvaraj, in respect of…
Judgment
W.P.(MD)No.7370 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 18.03.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.(MD)No.7370 of 2026 Rajalakshmi... Petitioner-vs-1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, EB Complex, Near Old Bus Stand, Pudukkottai District.
The Assistant Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Ex-Servicemen Residential Area), EB Complex, Near Old Bus Stand, Pudukkottai District.
Operative part
Muthukkannu... RespondentsPRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the electricity service connection bearing Service Connection No.061140151198 obtained by Muthukkannu, wife of Selvaraj, in respect of the petitioner's property situated at Pudukkottai North Village, Old Survey No.12/9, New Survey No. 377/38, based on the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2025.____________Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7370 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mrs.A.BanumathyFor R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing CounselORDERThe prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 29.12.2025 and to cancel the electricity service connection granted in favour of the third respondent.2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner has alleged that the third respondent has created false documents, encroached upon the property, put up construction, and obtained an electricity service connection.3. If that be so, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. As and when the petitioner secures relief in her favour, the electricity service connection can be suitably transferred to her name in accordance with law.____________Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7370 of 20264. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 18.03.2026Neutral Citation : No smn2To:-1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, EB Complex, Near Old Bus Stand, Pudukkottai District. 2. The Assistant Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Ex-Servicemen Residential Area), EB Complex, Near Old Bus Stand, Pudukkottai District.____________Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.7370 of 2026D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. smn2W.P.(MD)No.7370 of 202618.03.2026____________Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of
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.