Judgment :- Challenge in this Writ Petition is the letter of the second Respondent dated 2. 2001 stating that for extension of electricity supply to the fourth Respondent, Pentecostal Mission [for short, the Church], no consent of the land owner is necessary, as per Section 42 of Electricity (Supply) Act; and for direction forbearing the Respondents 1 to 3 from erecting any poles in the Petitioner premises. 2. The first Petitioner - Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited [for short BHEL], is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, engaged in the manufacture of Boiler, Boiler components, Valves and Soot Blowers etc. necessary for generation of electricity and required by other industries, including the defence. The fourth Respondent Church has put up construction/sheds, for worship and other purposes. Church premises has been subject matter of dispute in various litigation. According to the fourth Respondent, it moved the District Collector, Trichy in 1994 for assignment of three acres of land in SF No.565 and the Revenue Department has identified the site and the fourth Respondent had put up construction, which is now the Church premises. The stand of BHEL is that the Church premises is in S.F.No.586, belonging to BHEL. This rival claim of the parties is the subject matter of dispute in several litigations, which we may briefly enumerate hereunder. .3. O.S.No.310/1996 was filed by BHEL, in which the fourth Respondent has filed the Written Statement and is contesting the suit. BHEL initiated proceedings under the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971, against the fourth Respondent for eviction, on the ground that the fourth Respondent had encroached into a portion of S.No.584 and 586, Thuvakudy Village, belonging to BHEL. Show Cause Notice was issued to the fourth Respondent and the fourth Respondent opposed the same, stating that the construction of the Church was only in S.F.No.565. After holding enquiry, in exercise of power under Section 5(1) of Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971, the second Petitioner – Estate Officer ordered eviction and directed the Church to evict the premises within fifteen days of the date of publication of the Order. 4. Order of the Estate Officer [dated 13.01.1998] was challenged before the District Judge, Trichy in C.M.A.No.3/1998. 4. Order of the Estate Officer [dated 13.01.1998] was challenged before the District Judge, Trichy in C.M.A.No.3/1998. Before the District Judge, there were two Certificates, one by the District Collector stating that the Church is situated in S.F.No.586, which belongs to BHEL; and another by Tahsildar, that the Church is situated in S.F.No.565, which is a poromboke land belonging to the Government. Since there were two certificates, the learned District Judge appointed a Commissioner. After measuring the properties, Commissioner had filed the report stating that the Church is located in S.F.No.586. Needless to refer to the CRPs filed by the Church, challenging the Order of appointment of Commissioner and the Order of dismissal of the application in which the Church has sought for re-issuance of warrant to the Commissioner. After contest, C.M.A.No.3/1998 was dismissed, which is said to have been challenged. Further it was stated that worshippers in the Church have filed another suit claiming right of worship and the said suit is said to be pending. Location of the Church and right to the premises is thus the subject matter of dispute in various litigations. Therefore, this Court does not propose to express any views regarding the right of either parties. 5. In the above background, the impugned Order has to be considered. Earlier in 1996, the Church had given an application for getting electricity connection on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar that the fourth Respondent premises lies in S.F.No.565. On receipt of objection from BHEL, supply was not extended to the fourth Respondent and the application received in 1996 and the same was treated as cancelled. The BHEL filed civil suit O.S.No.310/1996 for Permanent Injunction which is stated to be pending in Sub Court, Trichy. .6. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [in short, TNEB], in its B.P.No.25 dated 310. 2000 issued certain directions regarding giving supply to intending consumers. As per those instructions, TNEB need not insist on ownership of the premises, whenever supply is sought for and it is enough if the consumer gives a declaration that he is the legal occupant of the premises. Based on these instructions, the fourth Respondent again gave an application on 211. 2000 to TNEB with the requisite declaration and sought for service connection. Since the route in which the supply to be extended to the Church passes through BHEL lands, by the letter dated 012. Based on these instructions, the fourth Respondent again gave an application on 211. 2000 to TNEB with the requisite declaration and sought for service connection. Since the route in which the supply to be extended to the Church passes through BHEL lands, by the letter dated 012. 2000, BHEL was informed that the supply was going to be extended to the fourth Respondent, with request to permit erection of poles. By letter dated 112. 2000, Petitioner refused the said request of TNEB by for erection of poles. Invoking B.P.No.25 dated 310. 2000 and Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, TNEB has issued the impugned Order dated 02.02.2001, stating that in view of Section 42 of the Act, owner of the land cannot deny erection of poles in the property and called upon BHEL to permit TNEB to erect poles in its lands which is now challenged in this Writ Petition. 7. Submitting that no pole could be erected in the lands of BHEL, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner inter alia raised the following contentions: - "The Church has not produced any assignment in its favour and the Commissioners report that the Church is located in S.F.No.586 is unassailable; "When the Estate Officer and the District Judge have consistently held that the Church is located in S.F.No.586, which is patta land of BHEL, TNEB has no power to enter into BHEL land and no pole could be erected in the lands of BHEL, by the TNEB. "In any event, Section 42 of Electricity (Supply) Act could be invoked only if there is a Sanctioned Scheme and when there is no Sanctioned Scheme, TNEB cannot lay pole in the patta lands of BHEL. "As per Section 12(2) of Electricity Act, TNEB cannot erect pole in a place without the consent of the owner or occupant and when no Sanctioned Scheme has been established, the impugned Order is unsustainable. 8. On behalf of the Church, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Rajagopalan, has contended that grant of electricity does not depend upon as to who is the owner; and till they are lawfully evicted, the Church is entitled to have basic amenities. Reliance was placed upon AIR 2004 Madras 514 [Asokan Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation and others]. 8. On behalf of the Church, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Rajagopalan, has contended that grant of electricity does not depend upon as to who is the owner; and till they are lawfully evicted, the Church is entitled to have basic amenities. Reliance was placed upon AIR 2004 Madras 514 [Asokan Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation and others]. Contending that under Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003, on request, TNEB has a duty to supply electricity and TNEB is only concerned with occupation of the premises and the objection raised by the BHEL, cannot be the reason for not effecting service connection. It was further submitted that no notice is required to owner before laying poles and that as an occupier, the fourth Respondent Church is entitled to electricity supply. The learned Counsel has interalia raised contention regarding the propriety of the eviction Order passed by the Estate Officer and submitted that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to pass eviction Order, exercising power under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971. 9. This Court does not propose to express any opinion regarding the location of the Church and its ownership, since the question, as to whether the Church is in lawful occupation of premises or not is sub judice, in at least two various litigations. 10. Having regard to the contentions raised, the following two questions arise for consideration: - .(i) Can BHEL raise objection for giving electricity supply to intending consumer/fourth Respondent? .(ii) Invoking Section 42 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, can TNEB call upon BHEL to permit the laying of poles, for extending supply to the fourth Respondent? 11. In the year 2000-01, terms and conditions of supply of electricity in B.P.No.61 dated 212. 1988, was in vogue. Clause 6.00 lays down the procedure for requisition of supply of electricity and for making an application for supply of electricity and the procedure thereon. As per 6.02, an intending consumer, who is not the owner of the premises he occupies, should produce a consent letter in the form prescribed by the Board from the owner of the premises for availing supply. As per 6.02, an intending consumer, who is not the owner of the premises he occupies, should produce a consent letter in the form prescribed by the Board from the owner of the premises for availing supply. As per 6.03, if the owner is not available or if he refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer should produce proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Board, indemnifying the Board against any losses on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection to the occupant. 12. As per 6.04, if supplyof any type of service connection in government/Poromboke Land is applied for, the intending consumer should produce No Objection Certificate from an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar and also execute an Indemnity Bond in the form prescribed. Be it noted, the instructions regarding revenue poromboke are applicable only in case of domestic services in unmetered services [i.e. Free supply only]. Metered power supply to the houses constructed in poromboke land could be extended in respect of which house tax has been levied by the local body or whose occupants possess ration card as a proof of lawful occupation of the premises, subject to the execution of an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Board. Tenor of the terms and conditions for obtaining Service Connection is to the effect that the occupant must be in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Board. 13. As per the terms and conditions then prevailing, the occupant can obtain service connection if he is in lawful occupation of the premises. As per B.P.No.25 dated 310. 2000, TNEB does not insist on ownership of the land. If the owner refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer should produce proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an Indemnity Board in the form prescribed by the Board, indemnifying the Board against any loss on account of the dispute arising out of effecting service connection to the occupant. 14. If the owner refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer should produce proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an Indemnity Board in the form prescribed by the Board, indemnifying the Board against any loss on account of the dispute arising out of effecting service connection to the occupant. 14. With the object of enacting a new Act for encouraging private sector participants in generation of power and transmission and distribution, Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity [Supply] Act, 1948 and Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1988 are now substituted by consolidated Act, Electricity Act 2003, Central Act 36/2003. Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003, casts a duty on the Distribution Licensee to provide supply of electricity to the owner or occupant of any premises, when they apply for supply of electricity. Distribution licensee should supply electricity within one month. The person requiring supply of electricity shall have to pay to the Distribution Licensee such price as may be determined by the appropriate authority. If a distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within the prescribed period, the Distribution Licensee shall be liable for penalty, which may extend to Rs.1000/-for each day of penalty. Provision regarding duty to supply electricity in Section 43 is also reproduced in Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Distribution Code, 2004 [for short Tamil Nadu Code, 2004]. Thus under Section 43, a mandatory duty is cast upon the TNEB to provide supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises when they apply for electricity connection. 15. Section 27(4) of Tamil Nadu Code 2004 stipulates the procedure for service connection to an intending consumer, who is not the owner of the premises. 27(4) reads as under:- "(4) An intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises he occupies shall produce a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure II to this Code from the owner of the premises for availing the supply. If the owner is not available or he 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 of effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate". Even in the present case, the fourth Respondent Church, being in occupation of the premises, is not disputed. Whether the fourth Respondent is in lawful occupation of the premises is sub judice. While the matter is sub judice, TNEB need not insist on the consent of BHEL, who claims ownership of the premises. Since ownership of the premises is sub judice, BHEL cannot object to the supply of electricity to the fourth Respondent till the issue is determined and it is lawfully evicted. In view of B.P.No.25, dated 310. 2000 [the terms and conditions then prevailing] and in view of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003, read with Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Act, 2004, the fourth Respondent is entitled to electricity service connection and the same cannot be objected to by BHEL. 16. The foremost question is giving service connection to the fourth Respondent. Can poles be erected in the lands of BHEL and whether TNEB can invoke Section 42 of Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. To lay poles in the lands of BHEL? For extending supply to the fourth Respondent, poles will have to necessarily be erected in BHELs land. By the letter dated 012. 2000, TNEB requested BHEL for grant of permission for erecting poles in BHEL premises. In the said letter, TNEB has stated "in case of eviction by Court orders, the service connection and the erected line materials will be dismantled". Stating that the fourth Respondent is not a legal occupant of the property and raising strong objection for erecting poles in the property belonging to BHEL, or to take lines for supply of electricity to the fourth Respondent through the property belonging to BHEL, the Petitioner has sent letter dated 112. 2000, to the TNEB to refrain from erecting poles or take to lines through BHELs property. 17. Thereafter, TNEB has sent the impugned letter dated 02.02.2001 stating that as per Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, TNEB is empowered to lay poles in private lands without the land owners consent. Under Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, certain powers in regard to entering private lands have been vested in the Board. As per Section 42, the Board shall have all powers to enter a private land for placing of any wires, poles, wall brackets, where provision is made in a Sanctioned Scheme. Under Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, certain powers in regard to entering private lands have been vested in the Board. As per Section 42, the Board shall have all powers to enter a private land for placing of any wires, poles, wall brackets, where provision is made in a Sanctioned Scheme. Entering of land for the purpose of putting up poles, wires etc. in connection with supply of electricity. Copy of Section 42 and other connected directions were enclosed with the impugned letter dated 02.02.2001. The enclosure reads as under: - "According to Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, certain powers in regard to entering private land have been vested in the Board. According to this provision the Board shall have all powers which the Telegraph Authorities possess under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to the telegraph established or maintained by the Government in a sanctioned Scheme. According to Sections 10 and 11 of the Telegraph Act, the telegraph authorities are not only permitted to place and maintain the telegraph lines under, over, along or across and put posts in or upon any immovable property from time to time, but also enter into the property in which the telegraph line or post has been placed. It is therefore not obligatory on the part of the competent authority who has been conferred the power of the telegraph authority under Section 10 to issue a prior notice to the owner of the property over which electricity supply line is proposed. Thus, in all sanctioned schemes the Electricity Board has the power to enter upon private land for placing of poles, wires etc., without the consent of the owner of the land. Only in the case of areas not covered by any sanctioned scheme the consent of the District Magistrate has to be obtained if the owner objects to such entry. But while entering any premises to which energy is or has been supplied by the Board the occupier has to be merely informed of the intention by the authorised inspecting officer of the Board. 6. All officers of the TNEB are therefore informed that they can enter a private land only for the purposes mentioned in the proceeding paras. On no other occasion they can enter a private land, without the written consent of the owner. These instructions should be strictly followed.” 18. 6. All officers of the TNEB are therefore informed that they can enter a private land only for the purposes mentioned in the proceeding paras. On no other occasion they can enter a private land, without the written consent of the owner. These instructions should be strictly followed.” 18. Requirement of getting consent of the owner of the property before commencing work, which is provided under Electricity Act, is dispensed with under Section 42, to go ahead with the work in a Sanctioned Scheme. Section 42 occurs in Chapter V of Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, which relates to ... "The Works and Trading, Procedure of the Board and the generating Company". In Chapter V various procedures are contemplated regarding preparation and sanction of schemes [Section 28]; publication of details of scheme sanctioned in the Official Gazette and in local newspapers [Section 28(3)]; submission of schemes for concurrence of authority etc. [Section 29]; consideration by the authority and concurrence of authority to scheme submitted to it by the Board or generating Company [Ss.30 and 31]; power to alter or extend schemes [Section 32] and such other provisions. Section 42 refers to that Sanctioned Scheme which has been sanctioned as per the various provisions contained in Chapter V. Section 42 cannot be invoked for erection of poles for extending supply of domestic or commercial supply. For extending supply to domestic or commercial supply, provisions of Section 12 to 19 of Electricity Act shall alone apply to the works of the Board and not section 42. 19. Section 12(2) of Electricity Act imposes a condition to obtain consent of the owner of the land before erecting poles. Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, reads as follows: - "(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the [owner or occupier] concerned, as the case may be, lay down or place any electric supply-line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, wherever or where under any electric supply-line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee." 20. Admittedly, TNEB has not obtained consent of BHEL for erecting electric poles. Its request for erecting poles in BHEL premises was denied by BHEL. Admittedly, TNEB has not obtained consent of BHEL for erecting electric poles. Its request for erecting poles in BHEL premises was denied by BHEL. While so, the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act cannot be circumvented by invoking Section 42 of Electricity (Supply) Act. Referring to Section 42 and Sections 12 to 19, in AIR 1978 Orissa 190 [The Orissa State Electricity Board and another Vs.Pyari Mohan Pattnaick and others], it was held as follows:- "So long as provision for placing, maintaining or taking any wires, poles and appliances for the transmission and distribution of electricity, as mentioned in para 1 and S.42 of the Electricity [Supply] Act is not made in the sanctioned scheme, the powers under Part III of the Electricity Act, 1910 will not be available and the provisions of Ss.12 to 19 of the Electricity Act shall apply to the works of the Board. Where the complained of electric transmission line over the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs was not in accordance with any sanctioned plan and that the complained-of alteration was done by a Superintending Engineer and the Board had not accorded any sanction for the said alteration. So the protection under S.42 of the Electricity (supply) Act was not available to the Electricity Board. The execution of the work could not be legalised retrospectively by granting ex post facto sanction. Therefore, the provisions of Ss.12 to 19 of the Electricity Act would apply to the complained of transmission line. So, the Board was not at all authorised to take the said transmission line on and over the Plaintiffs suit land, especially in view of their admitted objection and stiff opposition to that effect without following the relevant provisions of Ss.12 to 19 of the Electricity Act." 21. The above decision is applicable to the case on hand. The Board was not right in invoking Section 42 to erect poles in BHEL premises and commercial connection. Holding that erecting of poles in Petitioners land without its consent is illegal, in 1999(3) MLJ 235 [S.Kannappan [died] and others Vs. The Commissioner, Tiruvottriyur Municipality, Madras and others], Justice T.Meenakumari has held as under:- "5. The Board was not right in invoking Section 42 to erect poles in BHEL premises and commercial connection. Holding that erecting of poles in Petitioners land without its consent is illegal, in 1999(3) MLJ 235 [S.Kannappan [died] and others Vs. The Commissioner, Tiruvottriyur Municipality, Madras and others], Justice T.Meenakumari has held as under:- "5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon a decision of Calcutta High Court reported in Aswini Kumar V.Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation, AIR 1955 Cal.372 to substantiate his contention that Sec.2(2) of the said Act contemplates the consent of the owner of the land and in violation of the conditions imposed under Section 12(2) of the said Act, Respondents/ Electricity Board has no authority to erect the poles. 6. It is a fact that Sec.12(2) of the said Act imposes a condition to obtain consent of the owner of the land before erecting poles, and in this case, Respondents are not able to prove that they have obtained consent of the land owner. Under the above circumstances, it has to be held that there is violation of the conditions imposed under Section 12(2) of the said Act. It is a fit case wherein a direction shall go to the Respondents to remove the electric poles, service lines and the electricity supply lines connected thereto from the Petitioners land immediately. The Writ Petition is allowed". 22. For laying of electric poles invoking Section 42, TNEB cannot enter upon BHEL premises, since extending power supply to the fourth Respondent is not in connection with any sanctioned plan, the impugned Order is liable to be quashed. 23. Contending that so long as the occupant is not evicted in accordance with law, he is entitled to enjoy basic amenities, which were available before ordering of eviction, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon AIR 2004 Madras 517. In the said case, electricity supply was sought to be disconnected and basic amenities were available even before the Order of eviction. In that context, the Court has observed that "the Petitioner is entitled to enjoy the basic amenities which were available before the order of eviction was passed" and ordered restoration of supply. In the present case, supply was not available earlier, but now sought to be obtained by erecting poles and hence the said decision is of no avail to the fourth Respondent. 24. In the present case, supply was not available earlier, but now sought to be obtained by erecting poles and hence the said decision is of no avail to the fourth Respondent. 24. I have already held that the fourth Respondent Church is entitled to have supply of electricity till it is lawfully evicted. Section 27(6) of Tamil Nadu Code, 2004 enables supply of electricity where the intending consumers premises has no frontage. Section 27(6) corresponds to Clause 6.06 of the then B.P.No.61 dated 212. 1988. Section 27(6) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, reads as under:- "(6) Where the intending consumers premises has no frontage on a street and the supply line from the licensees mains has to go upon, over or under the adjoining premises of any other person (whether or not the adjoining premises is owned jointly by the intending consumer and such other persons), the intending consumer shall arrange at his/her own expense for any necessary way leave, licence or sanction before the supply is effected. Even when the frontage is available, but objections are raised for laying lines/cables/ poles through a route proposed by the licensee involving minimum cost and in accordance with the technical norms, to extend supply to the intending consumer, the intending consumer shall arrange at his/her own expense necessary way leave, licence or sanction before the supply is effected. Any extra expense to be incurred by the licensee in placing the supply line in accordance with the terms of the way leave, licence or sanction shall be borne by the intending consumer. In the event of way-leave, licence or sanction being cancelled or withdrawn, the intending consumer shall at his/ her own cost arrange for any diversion of the service-line or the provision of any new service line thus rendered necessary". Since the lawful occupation or otherwise of the fourth Respondent is sub judice, in view of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the fourth Respondent is entitled to have electricity, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions under Section 27(4) of Tamil Nadu Code, 2004. It is open to the fourth Respondent intending consumer to arrange at its own expense for necessary way leave. 25. TNEB cannot enter upon BHEL premises without its consent to extend supply to the fourth Respondent. The fourth Respondent has to find out necessary way leave at its own expense. It is open to the fourth Respondent intending consumer to arrange at its own expense for necessary way leave. 25. TNEB cannot enter upon BHEL premises without its consent to extend supply to the fourth Respondent. The fourth Respondent has to find out necessary way leave at its own expense. Since there is no Sanctioned Scheme, invoking Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, TNEB cannot seek to enter upon BHEL premises for erecting poles for supply of electricity to the fourth Respondent. 26. The impugned Order of TNEB dated 2. 2001 is quashed. The fourth Respondent is at liberty to find other way leave at its own expense, as per Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Distribution Code, 2004. 27. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.