W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025 v. The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karur District.2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kulithalai, Karur
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
19440 and 19459 of 2025COMMON ORDERBy this common order, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of at the time of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the third respondents in both petitions
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. 18.07.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoIndu5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025To1.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karur District. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kulithalai, Karur…
Judgment
W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 18.07.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.P(MD) Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025W.P(MD) No.19440 of 2025 Sampoornam ... PetitionerVs.
The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karur District.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kulithalai, Karur District.
Operative part
The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District. ...RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's house situates in Door No.102/6 Mariyamman Kovil Street, Mayanur, Krishnayapuram Taluk, Karur District based on the receipt of the payment in connection no.20006043012535 with a time frame fixed by this court.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025W.P(MD) No.19459 of 2025 Rani ... PetitionerVs.1.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karur District. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kulithalai, Karur District. ...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner house Door No.123/7, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Mayanur, Kishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District with a time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner (in both cases) : Mr. N.Jeyaram SidharthFor R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan(in both cases) Standing CounselFor R3: Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman(in both cases) Government Advocate2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025COMMON ORDERBy this common order, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of at the time of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the third respondents in both petitions. 2. These Writ Petitions have been filed for a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue a power connection to the respective petitioners. 3. It is the case of the petitioners (in both petitions) that these petitioners have put up the constructions way back in 2021 and they were also given power connection on 07.02.2025 and the said power connection was disconnected on 08.02.2025.
The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that power connection was disconnected as in the land in question, where constructions have been put up by the petitioners are classified as water body (thup). However, there are no records to substantiate the same that the land in question 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025is classified as thup.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of A-register to indicate that the constructions are put up in Survey No.161 in Maayanoor Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District and that these lands have been classified in A-register as Tharisu land and that the lands have been in occupation of the fisherman over a period of 50 years.
Considering the fact that the constructions have been put up way back in 2021 and now the petitioners are living without power connection and since the matter would require a determination as to whether the constructions have been put up indeed in water body or not, I am inclined to suo-motu implead the Tahsildar of Krishnarayapuram, Karur District, as third respondent in these writ Petitions.
The third respondent is directed to conduct the survey of the above said lands with help of the Surveyor and in the presence of the petitioners, thereafter, shall give a certify whether the land in question, is indeed a water body or not. In case, the constructions have been put up in the water body, appropriate steps may be taken by the third respondent to evict the petitioners. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 20258. Pending the said exercise, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall give a power connection to the petitioners on the strength of the A-register, which is filed today before this Court, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the petitioners shall vacate the premises if any eviction proceedings are initiated against them, in the event the land in question is classified as a water body.
It is made clear that the power connection to be provided by respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be a provisional power connection and shall be subject to the final determination as to whether the constructions put up by the petitioners are on a water body or on 'Tharisu' land.
With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. 18.07.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoIndu5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025To1.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Karur District. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Kulithalai, Karur District. 3. The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District.C.SARAVANAN, J.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025 InduW.P(MD) Nos.19440 and 19459 of 2025 18.07.20257/7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 19440 and 19459 of 2025COMMON ORDERBy this common order, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of at the time of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the third respondents in both petitions
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.