Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Esther Ponnuthai D – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Engineer / Distrib – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellant: Mr.T.Selvan
For the Respondents: Mr.Deenadayalan, Standing Counsel
The court mandated the review and resolution of a petitioner's representation regarding unauthorized electric poles on private property.
Headnote:The petition under Article 226 seeks a writ of mandamus for the removal of unauthorized electric poles installed on the petitioner’s land as outlined in the representation dated 11.08.2025. The court observed the petitioner's ownership of the disputed property and the installation of poles without permission, directing the respondents to address the representation within six weeks. The conclusive order guided the appropriate consideration of the representation, leading to the final disposal of the writ petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for direction to remove unauthorized structures. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. direction for timely response to the petitioner's representation. (Para 4 , 5) |
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the electric poles installed in the petitioner’s property situated in Survey No.70/2, Thulukkarkulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli District, measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft. in Plot No.160, based on the petitioner’s representation dated
11.08.2025.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of the land comprised in Survey No.70/2, Thulukkarkulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli District, measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft. in Plot No.16. According to the petitioner, the respondents, without any authority, have installed electric poles in the said property, thereby obstructing the petitioner from using the land. Whether the electric poles have been installed in the said land without authorization is a matter to be examined by the respondents. In this regard, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 11.08.2025. Since no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. Considering the limited relief sought in this writ petition, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.08.2025 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
