Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petitions is that the electricity connection to the bore well in Survey No.56/1 at P.Kalpalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, had been disconnected by the seventh respondent, without conducting a proper inspection of the bore well and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that this Court, by its order, dated 9.7.2004, made in W.P.No.38715 of 2003, had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, to inspect the bore well in question and to find out, as to whether it is situate in the patta land belonging to the petitioner or in the poramboke land belonging to the Government. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, had given a report, dated 22.8.2006, stating that the bore well in question is situate in S.F.No.54, which is a poramboke land and not in 56/1, as claimed by the petitioner. In the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, it has been stated that the petitioner was present at the time of the inspection and survey. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 22.8.2006, had not been served on the petitioner. 5. Ms.C.K.Vishnu Priya, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Revenue Divisional Officer, had been directed to serve a copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 22.8.2006, on the petitioner. In view of the said direction, a copy of the said report had been given to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. However, it goes without saying that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 22.8.2006, if so advised, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner known to law.