Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore domestic electricity connection disconnected on 12.09.2011, in Card No.346-005-485. 2. The husband of the petitioner Thiru. M. Govindappa Naidu, holding the Consumer No.152, was charged with theft of energy in the year 1997. A criminal case vide Crime No.1503 of 1997, was registered against the late husband of petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruthani, acquitted the husband of the petitioner of the charge of theft of electricity. The revision filed by the Respondents against the order of acquittal was also dismissed. 3. The respondents, after having failed to prosecute the husband of the petitioner on the criminal side, proceeded departmentally to impose penalty of theft of 16,338 units. The Assistant Executive Engineer/Rural/Tiruttani imposed penalty of Rs.1,81,352/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty-one Thousand three Hundred and Fifty Two only). 4. The husband of petitioner, being aggrieved by the order imposing penalty, filed Civil Suit O.S.No.29 of 1998 in the District Munsif Court of Tiruttani. The suit was dismissed on 24.01.2000 as not pressed, but inspite of dismissal of the suit, the late Govindappa Naidu did not deposit the money. 5. However, when the steps were taken to disconnect the electric connection of the late Govindappa Naidu, he filed ordinary suit No.157 of 2001. The suit was decreed exparte on 10.10.2006, and a decree for permanent injunction was passed, restraining the respondents from disconnecting the domestic electric connection. 6. After the death of husband of petitioner, petitioner was served with demand notice for deposit of Rs.1,81,352/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Two only) stipulating that in the event of non payment of demand, the electric connection in Card No.346-005-485 will be disconnected. 7. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the demand notice, filed W.P.20541 of 2011, which is pending in this Court, but no interim order was passed by this Court in this writ petition, therefore, the domestic electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected on 12.09.2011. 8. The correct remedy with the petitioner was to file interim application, in the pending writ petition, but the petitioner has chosen to file this second writ petition, during the pendency of first writ, by pleading that act of disconnection of electricity give a fresh cause of action. 9. 8. The correct remedy with the petitioner was to file interim application, in the pending writ petition, but the petitioner has chosen to file this second writ petition, during the pendency of first writ, by pleading that act of disconnection of electricity give a fresh cause of action. 9. Leaned counsel for the petitioner challenged the action of disconnecting the electricity, on the ground of it being arbitrary, as it was not open to the respondents to disconnect the electric connection during pendency of writ petition, and that the disconnection of connection is comtemptuous, being in disobedience of the decree of permanent injunction passed against the respondents. 10. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner as an agreement holder, is bound by the terms and conditions of supply of electricity, therefore, has no locus standi to dispute the demand. 11. It is also the case of respondents, that the land and well with S.C.No.152 stood sold by the late husband of petitioner, therefore, petitioner has no concern with S.C.No.152 now. However, the main ground to challenge the writ is that as per the Clause 17(8) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, a consumer having more than one service connection, if commits a defaults in payment of dues, relating to one service connections, then the other service connection in the name of consumer can be disconnected after issuing notice, till the arrears of service connection are paid. The stand in reply is that this is what has been done. 12. There can be no dispute, that on account of non payment of dues in one connection by consumer, it is open to the respondents to disconnect the electricity, under the normal circumstances. However, in view of the fact, that the demand is under challenge in W.P.No.20541 of 2011, where the question of maintainability of the writ petition, in view of dismissal of O.S.No.20 of 1998, is to be decided, and in view of the fact, that decree of permanent injunction was passed against the respondents, the respondents could not have disconnected the electricity till decision by this Court in W.P.No.20541 of 2011. 13. 13. Though the petitioner had remedy to enforce the decree of permanent injunction, by filing Executing Application, therefore, writ to enforce injunction order is not competent, but keeping in view the fact, that the electricity is an essential commodity, and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is held, that the remedy of Execution is not equally efficacious remedy. 14. In view of the fact, that there is enforceable decree for permanent injunction against the respondents from disconnecting the electricity, and demand is under challenge in W.P.No.20541 of 2011, the action of the respondents in disconnecting the domestic connection cannot be sustained in law. 15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to forthwith restore electricity of the petitioner within three days of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. However, this order shall be subject to final decision by this Court in W.P.No.20541 of 2011, which is pending against the demand of penalty, where this Court will take a decision qua rights of the respondents in terms of the condition of supply, without reference to this judgment. 17. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.