1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 K.Navaneethakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Arasaradi Sub Division, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai North, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Koodal Nagar, Madurai North, Madurai. 4.K.M.Selvam ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider alternative route for erecting the electricity poles for giving connection to the fourth respondent without affecting the petitioner's agricultural land situates in Survey No.21/1A, Boothagudi Village, Madurai North Taluk. For Petitioner :Mr.V.P.Rajan For Respondents :M/s.S.Srimathy for SMS.Johnny Basha for R1 to R3 ORDER The petitioner is the owner of the land situate in S.No.21/1A, Boothagudi Village, Madurai North. On coming to know that the land of the petitioner was dug for laying electricity pole, when questioned by the petitioner, it was informed that they are proposing to give Service Connection to one K.M.Selvam. As it will affect his agricultural operations in his land, he sent a representation to the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai on 16.03.2011 and immediately thereafter, he filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to consider an alternative route for erecting the electricity poles for giving connection to the fourth respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. When the matter came up on 18.03.2011, this Court ordered notice of motion and also directed to give notice to the fourth respondent. Pending notice of motion, no interim order was passed. Subsequently, as proper service has not been effected to the contesting respondent, the petitioner has given a chance to carry out the process serving, vide order dated 08.08.2011 stating that in case the said order is not complied with, the writ petition will be dismissed as against the fourth respondent. 3. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has complied with the order passed by this Court. In any event, taking notice for respondents 1 to 3, Mrs.Srimathy, counsel representing Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha states that the proposal to lay electricity pole has been shut and as of now there is nothing on the cards to route through the petitioner's land. 4. Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Arasaradi Sub Divisiion, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai North, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Koodal Nagar, Madurai North, Madurai. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 19.10.2011 jikr RJ/8.11.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/