1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P(MD).No.680 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 A.Karuppaiah ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Engineer, Rural / West, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Melur-625 106. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in f/vz;/c/kp/ngh?C?nk?nk/th/m/nfh/nfhl;L/DCW-m.vz;/222/10 dated 30.06.2010 and quash the same, as it is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to effect service connection to the petitioner's house. For petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj For respondents : Mr.M.Sureshkumar ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 30.06.2010 calling upon him to pay Rs.28,340/- being the shifting charges. 2. According to him, he has put up constructions and is seeking for service connection from the respondents. He would contend that earlier, as the electricity lines have been drawn by the department without his consent and therefore, the demand now made by the department for shifting of the lines is illegal. In support of his contention, he has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court made in W.A.(MD).No.932 of 2010 dated 22.02.2011. 3. In this connection, a notice was issued to the learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who in turn, submitted that there is a distinction in the facts in W.A.(MD).No.932 of 2010 as well as the case on hand. He also submitted that after the line is drawn the very construction was put up and therefore, there is no question of giving consent, because the construction is in violation of the Rules and that is why, they have demanded for shifting of the lines. In any view of the matter, he would contend that they have no objection to give service connection to the petitioner if atleast he pays the shifting charges after the revised estimate is made for shifting at a lower rate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Heard both parties. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. At this point of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he does not want to have any fight with the department. However, he would contend that if the department comes out with a new work sheet and on such reduced work sheet, he is prepared to pay 50% of the amount in question. To which, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they are agreeable to work out a new work sheet and on the final worksheet to be arrived at, if he pays 50% of the charges, they are ready to consider the claim of the petitioner. 5. In any view of the matter, since both parties have agreed that they will share the shifting charges, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that on the payment of 50% of the revised work sheet to be arrived at by the respondents, they shall give electricity connection to the petitioner on payment of 50% of the charges. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Engineer, Rural / West, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Melur-625 106. +1. CC to Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 20823 ssm W.P(MD).No.680 of 2011 29.06.2011 TR : 04.08.2011: 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/