Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
M.Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Parvathipuram, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli District – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Palanivelayutham
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
Court directs consideration of representation for removal of unauthorized transformer on private land within stipulated time.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing removal of a transformer and electric poles erected on his property without due process. The facts reveal erection in 2017 without consent, leading to a representation dated 20.11.2026 for removal, which remained unaddressed. The court noted the respondents' undertaking to consider the representation. The primary issue was whether the respondents followed due process before installing infrastructure on private land. The court's reasoning emphasized expeditious consideration of the petitioner's representation on merits. The writ petition was disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized erection of transformer on private property without consent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents to consider representation per law. (Para 3) |
| 3. direction for merits-based decision within four weeks. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the plot situated in Survey No. 107/142, Nanjil Nagar South, Therekalputhur, Agastheeswaram Circle, Kanniyakumari District, is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the transformer, along with the electricity connection and the electric poles.
2.The petitioner states that the respondents, without following due process of law, had erected the transformer and drawn electricity lines and electric poles. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondents seeking removal of the transformer, electricity lines, and electric poles. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered as on date. The petitioner further states that he is not liable to pay charges under the deposited contribution work, since the transformer was allegedly erected illegally in the year 2017 without his consent.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by this Court.
4.The said submission is taken on record.
5.In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.11.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
