Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to receive his application for Low Tension Electricity Service Connection for his house at Door No.4/87, Kattukottai, Periyeri Village, Athur Taluk, Salem District as per law. 4. The petitioner has stated that he is an Agriculturist and that he had constructed a house in his land in S.F.No.378/9 in his native Periyeri Village, Athur Taluk, Salem District. To obtain electricity service connection for the said house, he approached the respondents in early August 2010. However, the respondents required the petitioner to submit an application along with a certificate from the Village Administrative Officer declaring the ownership of his house property and also a proof for payment of house tax to the local body. Accordingly, the petitioner obtained the above said documents and tendered application form for Low Tension Service connection to the 1st respondent on 17.08.2010. However, the 1st respondent refused to receive the said application without assigning any reason. When the petitioner insisted the office of the 1st respondent to receive his application, it was also declined. As such, the petitioner submitted the said application by Registered Post addressed to the 1st respondent and the same was received on 23.08.2010 by the 2nd respondent, though it was addressed to the 1st respondent. 4a. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, without any power, authority or jurisdiction chose to return the said application with a covering letter dated 30.08.2010 stating that the petitioners son, M.Chandrasekar had a due payable to the TNEB with regard to which a case was pending before this court and as such, the petitioners application cannot be processed and was thus being returned. According to the petitioner, his son M.Chandrasekar is a different and independent entity and he resides separately about a kilometre away from his house and the house for which he sought service connection from the respondents belongs to him and his son has nothing to do with the same. According to the petitioner, his son M.Chandrasekar is a different and independent entity and he resides separately about a kilometre away from his house and the house for which he sought service connection from the respondents belongs to him and his son has nothing to do with the same. In this situation, the refusal of the 2nd respondent to process his application is highly unjust and against the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. 4b. The petitioner would further state that as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to give supply of electricity within one month of receipt of an application by the owner or occupier of any premises requiring such supply. Further, Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code (in short TNEDC), 2004 also mandates the respondents in a similar manner. When the legal position is thus, the respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to return the petitioners application for electricity supply. However, the respondents have chosen to take into consideration matters extraneous to his legal right. Having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this court. 5. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for electricity supply has to be considered in the light of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act and the respondents have mandatory obligation to receive the application and decide the same in accordance with law. Even if there is any dispute with regard to the documents, under Rule 27 TNEDC, the respondents can decide and demand for any documents or undertaking and without doing so, they have returned the application of the petitioner. He would point out that the 1st respondent is the competent authority to receive the application of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that there are certain dues to be paid to the TNEB by the petitioners son, M.Chandrasekar, with regard to which a case is pending before this court in W.P.No.7063 of 2004 and an interim order is also passed therein. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner also has the obligation to clear the dues. 7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents annexed in the typed set of papers. 8. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner also has the obligation to clear the dues. 7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents annexed in the typed set of papers. 8. It is seen that the petitioner claims that his son M.Chandrasekar is a different and independent entity and is not living with him and is away from his house. According to the petitioner, he has constructed the house recently in his land in S.F.No.378/9 in his native village. Thereafter, he obtained necessary documents required for electricity service connection and went before the 1st respondent; but the 1st respondent declined to receive the petitioners application. However, the same was received by the 2nd respondent and returned to the petitioner stating that dues are to be paid to the TNEB by his son and for that reason, the petitioners application has not been received and processed. 9. Now, the petitioner has come out with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to receive the application for Low Tension Electricity Service Connection in his name. It is the obligation on the part of the respondents under Section 43 of the Electricity Act that when an application is made, they have the obligation to receive the same and process and effect service connection within a period of one (1) month, taking into account the requirements under the provisions of the Act or even if there is any dispute with regard to the land or other owners, under Rule 27 of the TNEDC, the respondents have to decide the application and in the instant case, the respondents have not even received the application and processed it. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is the competent authority to decide the application in respect of Low Tension Electricity Service Connection, whereas, the 2nd respondent has returned the application stating that dues are to be paid in respect of his son. 10. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is the competent authority to decide the application in respect of Low Tension Electricity Service Connection, whereas, the 2nd respondent has returned the application stating that dues are to be paid in respect of his son. 10. At this stage, it would be worth referring to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, which would run thus: "43.Duty to supply on request : (1) Every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, gives supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission : Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area. (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1) : Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default." 11. (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default." 11. In the light of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has sought for a limited relief of directing the respondents to receive his application, without going into the merits of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to receive the petitioners application for Low Tension Electricity Service connection to the petitioner at Door No.4/87, Kattukottai, Periyeri Village, Athur Taluk, Salem District and decide the same in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the Act and also as per the provisions of the Code and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.