Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents, to grant electricity service connection to the petitioner's house, bearing Door No.18(New No.49 A1) Raghavendra Street, Komarapalayam, Namakkal District, by considering the petitioner's application, dated 13.09.2011. 3. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that the electricity service connection, bearing No.96, was in the name of the petitioner's father-in-law. Whileso, theft of energy had been detected, on 26.11.1992, from the said electricity service connection. Therefore, the Extra Levy Charges, amounting to Rs.1,75,212/-, had been levied. Further, a sum of Rs.25,000/-had been collected from the petitioner's father-in-law. 4. It had been further stated that the petitioner's father-in-law, had filed a suit, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. Subsequently, the petitioner's father-in-law had died and the suit had been dismissed, on 03.09.2002. However, it had been restored pursuant to an order passed by this Court, in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1514 of 2006. 5. It had been further stated that, as per Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code 2004, the board could refuse the supply of electricity to an intending consumer, who had defaulted in the payment of the dues, in respect of any other service connection in his name. Since, the theft of electricity had been found, in respect of service connection No.96, which was in the name of the petitioner's father-in-law, Extra Levy Charges, payable by him, had been included in his electricity service connection, bearing No.95. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the request made by the petitioner, for a separate electricity service connection, in her name, is collusive in nature and therefore, her request for a separate electricity service connection cannot be given, as prayed for by her, in the present Writ Petition. 7. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the request made by the petitioner, for a separate electricity service connection, in her name, is collusive in nature and therefore, her request for a separate electricity service connection cannot be given, as prayed for by her, in the present Writ Petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, in P.Visalakshi Versus Junior Engineer O & M, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in (2006) 3 M.L.J 33 , to contend that the respondent electricity board cannot refuse to grant a separate service connection, in the name of the petitioner, for the alleged dues of her father-in-law,as the property in respect of which the service connection is required stands in her name. 8. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 13.09.2011,for the grant of an electricity service connection, for Door No.18(New No.49 A1), and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.