Madras High Court
M.Eswaramoorthy vs Deputy Secretary To Government on 24 September, 2021
WA(MD)No.1111 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :24.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
W.A.(MD).No.1111 of 2012
M.Eswaramoorthy ... Appellant/Petitioner
-vs-
1. Deputy Secretary to Government,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation ( TANGEDCO / TNEB),
Department of Energy (Electricity),
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation ( TANGEDCO / TNEB),
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation ( TANGEDCO / TNEB),
Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle (KKEDC),
Circle Office,
Parvathipuram, Nagercoil – 629 003,
Kanyakumari District.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA(MD)No.1111 of 2012
4. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation ( TANGEDCO / TNEB),
Kuzhithurai Distribution Section,
Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle (KKEDC),
Kanyakumari District-629 159. ...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.13562 of 2012, dated 18.10.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.V.J.Kumaravel
For R.1 : Mr.R.Ragavendran
Government Advocate
For R2 to R4 : Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran
JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was made by V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
This Writ Appeal is filed to set aside the order passed by this
Court in W.P(MD)No.13562 of 2012, dated 18.10.2012.
2. According to the appellant, he was working as Junior Engineer in
the respondent Electricity Board. While he was in service, on two occasions,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA(MD)No.1111 of 2012
a sum of Rs.1744/9 and a sum of Rs.770/- respectively have been illegally
recovered. To refund the same, the appellant has made representations.
Since the representations of the appellant was not considered, he has filed
writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of delay and laches. Challenging the order passed by
the learned single Judge, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal.
3. Mr.V.J.Kumaravel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would vehemently contend that on two occasions, certain amounts
have been illegally recovered from the appellant without any valid reason.
The appellant filed an appeal before the authorities and the appeal was not
considered by them and therefore, the appellant has left with no other option
but to approach this Court and file a writ petition. Without considering all
these facts, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition only on the
ground of laches. According to him, the appellant is pursuing his remedy
from the authorities from the year 2002 and since no suitable order has been
passed by the authorities, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year
2012 and there is no laches on his part.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA(MD)No.1111 of 2012
4. Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4
would submit that earlier order of recovery was passed in the year 2002 and
the petitioner is said to have challenged the order by way of appeal before
the Chairman in the year 2006. The proceedings available in the Board
shows that suitable reply was also given to the petitioner by the
Superintending Engineer in the year 2007 itself. Suppressing all those facts,
the appellant has approached this Court and therefore, the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents.
6. The order of recovery was passed against the petitioner in the year
2002. First of all, the petitioner has to challenge the order of recovery and
without doing the same, the petitioner has filed writ petition seeking a
mandamus to refund the amount, which is not maintainable. Even though
the order of recovery has been passed in the year 2002, the petitioner has
filed the writ petition in the year 2012 after lapse of 10 years and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA(MD)No.1111 of 2012
fair explanation for the delay. Considering all those aspects, the learned
single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find no illegality in
the order by the learned single Judge.
7. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[V.B.D.,J.] [R.P.A.,J.]
24.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
CM
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA(MD)No.1111 of 2012
To,
1. Deputy Secretary to Government,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution
Corporation ( TANGEDCO / TNEB),
Department of Energy (Electricity),
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA(MD)No.1111 of 2012
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.
and
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
CM
ORDER MADE IN
W.A.(MD).No.1111 of 2012
24.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
