Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to give service connection to No. 114, Puliyur village, inclusive of order of disconnection, if any, in 163, Acharavakkam village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengai MGR District and to direct the respondents to restore the said service connection on payment of electricity charges in arrears and restoration charges if any. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, they have contested the case and the learned Government Advocate appearing for them vehemently argued the matter and pleaded that the writ petition may be dismissed for want of merits. 3. Heard the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows : The petitioner herein is an agriculturist and he owns land in village No. 163, Acharavakkam, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengai MGR District. On the lands owned by him is in S. No. 17/2A of an extent of 0.025 hectares in which he has dug a well and installed 3 H.P. Motor Pump-set and the service connection number is 114 Puliyur village. He purchased lands belonged to one Elumalai with a service connection in his name and after some time, the well in the said land became dry and therefore he purchased. S. No. 17/2A from one Kaliammal, wife of Natarajan and dug up a new well in the said land. He purchased lands belonged to one Elumalai with a service connection in his name and after some time, the well in the said land became dry and therefore he purchased. S. No. 17/2A from one Kaliammal, wife of Natarajan and dug up a new well in the said land. He shifted the motor and pump set to the well in S. No. 17/2A and applied for shifting the service connection and the same was ordered on payment of Rs. 2,060/- on 5-1-1991. Under the said receipt he has also paid arrears as stated therein and the same receipt is filed. The petitioner herein has now raised sampa paddy crop in three acres and he is also irrigating other standing crops through this motor and pump-set. According to him, as there has been no rains, there is no supply of water from the lake and hence they have to depend only on the well water. Unless the well water is drawn for irrigating the transplanted standing paddy crop, the same will wither away and he will lose the entire crop. He and his family is wholly depending on the paddy raised and hence the same has to be irrigated. The service connection was disconnected by the linemen on 30-10-1992. But he was not served with any notice, nor was there any demand. There was no order passed against him for such disconnection, nor was there any enquiry conducted. He was not heard. No opportunity was given to him at all. When enquired, he was told that there are arrears of electricity charges payable for July 88, July 89 and July 90 amounting to Rs. 318/-. His case is that all the arrears were duly collected from him at the time of shifting of the service connection in January 1991 itself and that there was no arrears whatsoever. Therefore it is contended by him that the disconnection effected on 30-10-1992 is illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of natural justice. He was not served with any notice or order of disconnection. His case is that unless the service connection is restored, he will be put to irreparable loss and damages and that entire family will go without food. According to the petitioner, herein, the first respondent is the officer in charge of the service connection in their village and he is under the control of the 2nd and the 3rd respondents. His case is that unless the service connection is restored, he will be put to irreparable loss and damages and that entire family will go without food. According to the petitioner, herein, the first respondent is the officer in charge of the service connection in their village and he is under the control of the 2nd and the 3rd respondents. It is also the case of the petitioner herein that the entire records pertaining to the service connection No. 114, Puliyur Village, standing in the name of the petitioner and the order of disconnection, if any, has to be called for and the authorities may be directed to restore the service connection forthwith. Further according to him, there are no arrears and even if there are any arrears, he is prepared to pay the same. He also undertook to pay the electricity consumption charges that may be due the service connection may be restored on such payment, and if necessary, he also undertakes to pay any reconnection charges. Having left with no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court, he has filed this writ petition invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution and also it is his case that he has been forced to file this writ petition since it is the only remedy that he can have which is efficacious and expeditious. It is also his grievance that since the standing transplanted paddy crop has to be irrigated immediately, necessary directions are to be issued pending disposal of the above writ petition for restoration of the service connection. Therefore according to the petitioner herein, necessary directions for restoration of the service connection has to be given to the authorities concerned. 6. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties, the following are the admitted facts in this case. In the lands owned by the petitioner herein in S. No. 17/2A he has dug a well and installed 3 H.P. motor pump-set and the service connection number is 114 Puliyur Village. In the lands owned by the petitioner herein in S. No. 17/2A he has dug a well and installed 3 H.P. motor pump-set and the service connection number is 114 Puliyur Village. He has thus purchased the said land since the well in the other land purchased by him dried up and that therefore only with a view to dug up a well in the said land he purchased the S. No. 172A land from one Kaliammal wife of one Natarajan and dug up a new well in the said land. He shifted the motor and pump set to the well in S. No. 17/2A and applied for shifting the service connection and that the same was ordered on payment of Rupees 2,060/- on 5-1-1991. It is his case that under the said receipt he has also paid arrears as stated therein and the same has been produced before this Court. It is his case that he has now raised sampa paddy crop in three acres and he is also irrigating the same with this motor and pump set. It is also his grievance that as there has been no rains, there is no supply of water from the lake and hence they have to depend only on the well water. Therefore it is claimed by him that unless the well water is drawn for irrigating the transplanted standing paddy crops with same will wither away and he will lose the entire crop. It is also his case that himself and his family is wholly depending on the paddy raised and hence the same has to be irrigated. That being so, it is the grievance of the petitioner herein that the service connection was disconnected by the linesmen on 30-10-1992. Regarding this it is contended by the petitioner that he was not served with any notice nor was there any demand. It is also concern that there was no order passed against him for such disconnection, nor was there any enquiry conducted, he was not heard and no opportunity also was given to him. It is also his case that he came to know that the said disconnection was done due to arrears of electricity charges payable for July 88, July 89 and July 90 amounting to Rs. 318/-. It is also his case that he came to know that the said disconnection was done due to arrears of electricity charges payable for July 88, July 89 and July 90 amounting to Rs. 318/-. But according to him, all the arrears were duly collected from him at the time of shifting of the service connection in January 1991 itself and that therefore according to the petitioner there was no arrears whatsoever. Therefore it is the strong contention of the petitioner herein that the disconnection effected on 30-10-1992 is illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of natural justice. His main contention is that he was not served with any notice or order of disconnection, and it is also contended by him that unless the service connection is restored, he will be put to irreparable loss and damages and the entire family will go without food. 7. Further, even though it is contended by the petitioner that there are no arrears, at the same time he himself admits that the said disconnection of service connection was effected only due to arrears of electricity charges payable for July 88, July 89 and July 90 amounting to Rs. 318/-. But he has not produced any records before this Court to prove his version that all the arrears were duly collected from him at the time of shifting. In support of his case he has produced only two receipts before this Court One is dated 5-1-1991 wherein it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 2,060/- was received towards shifting charges and SC arrears. In the another receipt it has been mentioned that a sum of Rs. 112.50 has been received towards electricity consumption charges for the month of 1/88. Except these two receipts he has not produced before this Court any other receipts to show that he has paid the amount for the arrears claimed by the respondent. Further, if he had paid the abovesaid arrears of consumption charges, definitely he would have produced the same before this Court. That apart it is also significant to note that it is claimed even by the petitioner in this writ petition that even though according to him there is no arrears, even if there are any arrears, he is prepared to pay the same. That apart it is also significant to note that it is claimed even by the petitioner in this writ petition that even though according to him there is no arrears, even if there are any arrears, he is prepared to pay the same. He also undertakes to pay the electricity consumption charges that may be due and the service connection may be restored on such payment. It is also pointed out by the petitioner herein that if necessary he undertakes to pay the reconnection charges. That being so, when the petitioner herein clearly know that the disconnection was made only due to the arrears of electricity charges payable for certain months amounting to Rs. 318/-, he should have paid the same to the authorities. When he is now ready and willing to pay all the arrears and other reconnection charges he should have approached the authorities for such remedies by remitting the said arrears towards electricity charges. But strangely even after knowing the reason for the disconnection, without paying the said amount of arrears of Rs. 318/- he has come forward with this writ petition and now he pleads that he is ready to pay all the arrears together with reconnection charges etc. If that is the case, he should inform such of his willingness to the authorities concerned and seek remedies before them. It is also not his case that he was always ready and willing to pay the said arrears to the respondents and they refused to receive the said amount and that therefore such action of the respondents in not receiving the arrears and not restoring the service connection is illegal and arbitrary. It is also not his case that he has paid all the arrears and however without any reason whatsoever, the respondents have disconnected the service connection. But it is his admitted case that the said disconnection was effected only because there is arrears of electricity charges payable for July 88, July 89 and July 90 amounting to Rs. 318/-. Thus when the reason for such disconnection is very clear to the petitioner herein he should have approached the concerned authorities for appropriate remedy. But it is his admitted case that the said disconnection was effected only because there is arrears of electricity charges payable for July 88, July 89 and July 90 amounting to Rs. 318/-. Thus when the reason for such disconnection is very clear to the petitioner herein he should have approached the concerned authorities for appropriate remedy. Therefore, in the above circumstances, he cannot contend that he was not served with any notice, nor was there any demand, there was no order passed against him for such disconnection, nor why there any enquiry conducted, he was not heard and above all he was not given any opportunity. I see no merit at all in the above contentions raised by the petitioner herein. Further when the petitioner herein now pleads that even if there are any arrears he is prepared to pay the same and undertakes to pay the electricity consumption charges that may be due and the service connection may be restored on such payment and if necessary, he also undertakes to pay any reconnection charges, let the petitioner inform the authorities concerned about the same and seek appropriate remedy. But without doing so, he has rushed to this Court with this writ petition. Therefore, in the above circumstances of the case, I do not see any merit in the case of the petitioner herein. 8. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case, and also in view of my above elaborate discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out any case in his favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the action of the respondents impugned in this writ petition. Thus the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 28707/92 also is dismissed. Petition dismissed.