Rajendran P vs The State of Tamilnadu Represented By, — WP(MD)/10643/2026

Case under Others Section others. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 21st May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMD010498902026

Filing Number

WP(MD)/30599/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP(MD)/10643/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice D.bharatha Chakravarthy

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice D.bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Electricity ( 56 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

21-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section others

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajendran P

    Adv. S.BALAJI,P.RENGARAJU-MS/86/2014,P.RENGARAJU-MS/86/2014, ,N.THINAKARAN,C.ANAND ,M.SHARU ,SANJAY SUNDARAM,P.RENGARAJU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Tamilnadu Represented By,

    Adv. K. MARUTHUPANDIAN - 8519/2024 FOR R3,P. KARUTHAPANDI – 4858/19,R. PARTHIBAN – 1251/07,M/s. M. RAJARAMAN – 653/77,TAKES NOTICE FOR R1 & R2 1123

  2. 2.The Assistant Engineer,

  3. 3.N.Raja,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-May-2026

    Adjourned Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice D.bharatha Chakravarthy

  3. 20-May-2026

    Notice Of Motion

    Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

  4. 13-May-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice G.K. IlanthiraiyanView PDF

    Case Summary: WP(MD)/10643/2026 Court Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for restoration of the electricity connection in the third respondent's name, but directed that the petitioner can apply for a new connection in his own name with an indemnity bond, which the electricity board must grant despite objections from the third respondent. Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioner's lawful occupation was established (a prior eviction petition treating him as a tenant was dismissed, confirming his co-sharer status), the disconnection was valid since the original connection stood in the third respondent's name and was legitimately disconnected per his request. However, as a person in lawful occupation without needing title documents, the petitioner has the right to obtain electricity by applying independently with appropriate indemnity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 29-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

  6. 16-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice Hemant ChandangoudarView PDF

  7. 16-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(MD)/10643/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP(MD)/10643/2026 Court Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for restoration of the electricity connection in the third respondent's name, but directed that the petitioner can apply for a new connection in his own name with an indemnity bond, which the electricity board must grant despite objections from the third respondent. Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioner's lawful occupation was established (a prior eviction petition treating him as a tenant was dismissed, confirming his co-sharer status), the disconnection was valid since the original connection stood in the third respondent's name and was legitimately disconnected per his request. However, as a person in lawful occupation without needing title documents, the petitioner has the right to obtain electricity by applying independently with appropriate indemnity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case