Judgment :- Since, the issues arising in both these Writ petitions are one and the same, a common order is passed. 2. Writ Petition No. 19779 of 2009 has been filed by one P.Mariappan praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 22.09.2009 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent and his subordinates to forbear from disconnecting the electricity service connection No. 216-25-194, existing in flat No. F-5, Door No. 11, Anupam Foundations, Ramapuram Ramasamy Street, Saidapet West, Chennai. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above Writ petition is that he had entered into an agreement with one S.Sarojini, wife of Sundararajan, for purchasing a flat bearing No. 11/F-5, Anupam foundations, New No. 9, Old No. 5/2, Ramapuram Ramasamy Street, West Saidapet, Chennai. He had further submitted that, based on the sale agreement, the petitioner is in possession of the premises in question. Therefore, he had prayed that the Electricity service connection in the said premises, in the name of the second respondent, should not be disconnected. 4.The petitioner, in W.P. No. 16735 of 2009 prays for a direction to forbear the 1st respondent from giving electricity service connection in favour of the 2nd respondent, namely P. Mariappan, to the property situated at New No. 9 and 11, Old No. 5/2, Ramapuram Ramasamy Street, 11/F5, Anupam Foundations, Saidapet(west), Chennai. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above writ petition is that, P. Mariappan, the petitioner in W.P. No. 19779 of 2009, is in unlawful possession of the premises in question. Therefore, the Electricity Service connection in the name of M. Sundararajan should be disconnected. 6. It is not in dispute that certain civil proceedings are pending before the concerned forum, wherein, the dispute is with regard to the premises in question. However, at this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, this Court is not inclined to pass any order, with regard to the other aspects, which are in dispute between the parties concerned. 7. However, at this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, this Court is not inclined to pass any order, with regard to the other aspects, which are in dispute between the parties concerned. 7. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in W.P. No. 19779 of 2009, that even if the electricity service connection in the name of the second respondent is disconnected, the request of the petitioner, namely P. Mariappan, may be considered by the first respondent, under Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code 2004, for the grant of Electricity service connection in his name. 8. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and on considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on perusal of records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs prayed for in these Writ petitions cannot be granted. 9. In such circumstances, both the above Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, it is found to be appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner, in W.P. No. 19779 of 2009 namely P. Mariappan, said to have been submitted on 01.10.2009 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code 2004, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of a Order. The petitioner, in W.P.No. 19779 of 2009 is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 01.10.2009, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. No costs. Consequently connected M.P.s are also closed.