Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 4 docs
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Electricity Act, 1910
Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Loading...
User Queries
Madras High Court
T.Natarajan vs The Assistant Executive on 17 April, 2012

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 17/04/2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.(MD)No.14833 of 2010

and

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010

T.Natarajan ... Petitioner

vs

1.The Assistant Executive

Engineer (O & M),

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Thiruverumbur,

Trichy  13.

2.J.Valliammal ... Respondent

PRAYER

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining the impugned order of the 1st respondent in f.vz;.n.kp.bgh/.n.fh/jpq/Bfh.f/vz;/41 for the records of the case relating to Notice to dated 23.06.2010 and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st respondent to provide the electricity connection in Door No.20- in 1st Cross Street, Thiruvenkata Nagar, Thiruverumbur, Trichy, Trichy District in accordance with the rules.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.Veera. Kathiravan

^For Respondents ... Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha

for R1

Mr.M.Vallinayagam

for R2

:ORDER

The petitioner sought for electricity connection to the house at D/20, 1st Cross Street, Thiruvengada Nagar, Trichy  13.

2.The first respondent passed an order dated 23.06.2010, which is put to challenge in this writ petition.

3.The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit seeking dismissal of the writ petition.

4.By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order and for a direction to give him electricity supply based on the Division Bench decision dated 08.10.2010 in W.A.(MD) No.667 of 2010. The learned counsel for the first respondent Electricity Board submits that any person, who has made request for supply of energy, is entitled to the same under Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent has vehemently contended that the second respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.135 of 1997, before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy, seeking for declaration and delivery of possession, relating to the property in issue. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Though an appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner before the first appellate Court, no stay of the decree was obtained. Hence, the petitioner was not granted any electricity supply. It is also submitted that since the first respondent is not the appropriate authority, he could not be directed to give electricity supply.

7.I have heard the submissions made on either side.

8.The impugned order is extracted hereunder:

"ghh;itapy; fz;Ls;s fojj;jpy; jpUBtA;flefh; D.20 A cs;s tPl;ow;F g[jpa kpd; nizg;g[ Btz;o kD bra;Js;sPh;fs;.

jhA;fs; g[jpa kpd; nizg;g[ BfhUk; nlkhd jpUBtA;flefh; jpUbtWk;g{h; gphpt[ mYtyfj;jpw;Fl;gl;l gFjp ny;iy. BkYk; me;j gFjp ifyhrg[uk; gphpt[f;Fl;gl;l gFjpahFk;.

ne;epiyapy; jpUkjp. J.ts;spak;khs; mth;fs; me;j nlk; bjhlh;ghf ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F bjhlug;gl;L jA;fSf;F jPh;g;ghfp cs;sjhft[k; mjdhy; vA;fSila nlj;jpw;F BtW ahh; bgahpYk; vA;fSila mDkjp ny;yhky; kpd; nizg;g[ tHA;ff; TlhJ vd Ml;Brgiz bjhptpj;Js;shh;.

vdBt ePjpkd;wj;jpypUe;J kpd;thhpaj;jpw;bfd;W jdp Miz VbjDk; bgw;W tejhy; mjd; Bghpy; kpd;thhpak; Bkw;bfhz;L eltof;if vLf;Fk; vd;gij md;g[ld; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ."

9.The impugned order contains two portion. As far as the second portion is concerned, it states that since the second respondent got a decree in her favour, the petitioner could not be granted electricity supply. In my view, the said portion is not sustainable in view of the judgment of this Court dated 08.10.2010 in M.A.(MD) No.667 of 2010. The relevant para No.4 is extracted hereunder:

"Para 4.When once it is held by this Court that the appellant is in possession, even if the possession is unlawful, which is to be decided only by a competent civil court, such person is entitled to have the electricity connection. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes a right to lead a decent life."

10.Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent, any person, who has come with the request for supply of energy, shall be provided under regulation 27(4) of the Code. 27(4) of the Code is extracted hereunder:

"An intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises shall produce a consent letter Form 5 of Annexure III to this code from the owner of the premises for availing the supply. If the owner is not available or refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on account of disputes arising out off effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate."

Hence, the petitioner is entitled to electricity supply in spite of the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. However, direction could not be issued to the first respondent since, he states that the property does not come under the jurisdiction of the first respondent.

11.Hence, I am not inclined to issue direction to the first respondent to issue electricity service connection to the petitioner. If the petitioner approaches the appropriate authority, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to service connection in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above and also the regulation 27(4) of the Code.

12.It is made clear that the supply of the electricity would not confer any title on the petitioner. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent that execution petition is pending. It is needless to state that the execution Court shall decide the issue on its own merits without being influenced by the order of this Court.

13.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Arul

To

The Assistant Executive

Engineer (O & M),

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Thiruverumbur,

Trichy  13.