Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of the patta land in survey No.261/15, Kappikattu Vilai, Keezhmidalam Panchayat, Colachal, Kanyakumari District having an extent of 7 cents. When the petitioner had decided to build a house on the said land, he had found that the third respondent was trying to get electricity connection through the petitioners land. Therefore, he had objected to the attempt of the third respondent by making a representation, on 112. 1999, to the first and second respondents. He had also sent a telegram to the first and second respondents, on 212. 1999, requesting for the removal of the electricity wires which were passing through his patta land. He had also appeared in person to file his objections and had also sent a lawyers notice stating that the installation of the electricity poles and drawing of wires across his patta land was illegal. He had also submitted a detailed representation, on 3. 2000, to the first and second respondents. Since there was no proper response from the first and second respondents, the petitioner had come before this Court by filing the writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first and second respondents denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondents have been following the rules and regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the orders passed by this Court. The revenue authorities had measured the land in the area concerned and put up boundary stones. As such R.S.No.261/14, is distinct and it is a separate plot with well defined boundaries belonging to C.Thangian, who has given a written consent to the respondent Electricity Board to take the electricity connection through his land. Accordingly, the first and second respondents herein had given the service connection to the third respondent through R.S.No.261/14 and by using the common pathway extending from the said survey number. 4. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had placed before this Court a letter, dated 8. Accordingly, the first and second respondents herein had given the service connection to the third respondent through R.S.No.261/14 and by using the common pathway extending from the said survey number. 4. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had placed before this Court a letter, dated 8. 2000, from the Superintending Engineer, Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, Nagercoil, stating that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had not put up any pole or drawn any line through the land of the petitioner. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had considered the representations of the petitioner and after inspection of the site and by getting a legal opinion from the Government Pleader, the service connection S.C.No.548, Pallapallam was given to the third respondent, on 13. 2000. It has also been stated that G.I. Pipes were planted in the land of C.Thangian, son of Chinna Pillai Nadar, in Survey No.261/14, based on his letter, dated 212. 1999 and a weather-proof line was drawn in the middle of the common path extending from his patta land and the service connection was given to Vaikundamani, the third respondent herein, on 13. 2000, with S.C.No.548 Pallapallam in Colachal-II Section in Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, no pole has been erected in the land belonging to the petitioner and no wires were drawn across the land. Therefore, there is no merit in the claims made by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not refuted the submissions made on behalf of the first and second respondents. 7. In the light of the letter, dated 8. 2000, received from the Superintending Engineer, Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, Nagercoil, and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be an aggrieved person. Further, the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the relief’s as prayed for in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.