1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.3492 of 2011 V.Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mannarpuram (Metro), Trichy, Trichy District. 2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vaiyampatti South Division, Vaiyampatti, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. ...Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioners house located in Door No.1/1171-2, S.No.19/2A, Vaiyampatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Sureshkumar ORDER The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Mandamus seeking the second respondent to provide electricity service connection to her house. She is aggrieved with the electricity department, for the reason that even though the petitioner has produced the relevant house tax receipts and other documents as required by the respondents, she has not been given the electricity connection. 2. Mr.M.Sureshkumar, learned Standing Counsel took notice for the respondents on 29.03.2011. He pointed out that the house tax receipt produced by the petitioner is not a regular one, but on enquiry, it was found that it was a conditional one. But, actually, what was produced before the authorities concerned was not the one with conditions imposed on the house tax receipts. Since there was some discrepancy, they sought time for clarification and verification and before that, the petitioner has come forward with the Writ Petition. Now, he would contend that as the petitioner has not approached the Electricity Board with clean hands, they would contend that that they would investigate the matter further and pass necessary orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. This Court at the time of admission on hearing the respondents directed that the petitioner has to produce the original tax receipt and the said tax receipt was produced before this Court today. (07.04.2011). In the tax receipt copy given to the electricity board it did not contain the condition “epge;jida[ld; Toa ur PJ” whereas, actually there is a condition imposed in the original tax receipt. Hence, the Writ Petition, at this stage, is not maintainable. The department is well at liberty to investigate the contentions of the petitioner and only on the available records, the authorities could act on that. Since, the petitioner has not made out any case, especially, he has produced the documents for the perusal of the authorities suppressing the fact that it is a conditional receipt, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (L.A) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mannarpuram (Metro), Trichy, Trichy District. 2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vaiyampatti South Division, Vaiyampatti, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. + 1 cc to Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, Advoate, SR No.13478 W.P.(MD).No.3492 of 2011 09.04.2011 ssm RJ/28.4.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/