IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 19.04.2011 CORAM :: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No:10012 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.J. David 2.J.O.Felaxin Nirmala .. Petitioners /vs/ 1.The Assistant Engineer(O&M) Madhavaram-I/CEDC-North TamilNadu Electricity Board Chennai-600 040 2.C. Umapathy .. Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his impugned notice, dated 11.03.2011 in proceedings, Ka.No.A.E/O & M/Madhavaram-I/F/D699/11 and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultravires and illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to restore the Electricity Service Connection, bearing No.066:019:634 of the first petitioner to property situate at land in Punja Survey No.464/1B & 465/1B2, Madhavaram village and taluk, Tiruvallur District. For Petitioners : Mr. R. Munusamy For Respondent : Mr. A. Selvendran No.1 ORDER This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorariied Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in the impugned notice, dated 11.03.2011 in proceedings, Ka.No.A.E/O & M/Madhavaram-I/F/D699/11 and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra vires and illegal and to consequently direct the first respondent to restore the Electricity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Service Connection, bearing No.066:019:634 to the petitioner's property situated at land in Punja Survey No.464/1B & 465/1B2, Madhavaram Village and Taluk, Tiruvallur District. 2. Mr. A. Selvendran, learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent. In view of the nature of order that is to be passed, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent issued a notice dated 11.3.2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit certain documents and according to the petitioners, they gave a reply dated 17.3.2011 which was not considered by the first respondent. On the contrary, by the proceedings of the first respondent, the power supply was disconnected at the end of March 2011. Hence, writ petition has been filed to quash the notice issued by the first respondent and to direct the authority to restore the power supply. 4. Since, the petitioners have already submitted a reply dated 17.3.2011 to the first respondent and they have to furnish the required documents including the proof of actual disconnection, this court is of the view that the petitioners should be directed to make a fresh representation to the first respondent to restore the power supply, if it has not already been restored and such representation shall be considered along with the earlier representation, dated 17.3.2011 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. This writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ari/ra To The Assistant Engineer(O&M) Madhavaram-I/CEDC-North TamilNadu Electricity Board Chennai-600 040 + 1 cc to Mr.R. Munusamy, Advocate Sr.27120 W.P.No.10012 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 NG(CO) EU 20.4.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/