JUDGMENT 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner submits that he is the owner of the property at Old door No.3, New No.5, Dhandapani Street, Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-17, by virtue of registered settlement deed executed by his mother Parimala vide document No.1344 of 2010 in the office of the SRO, T.Nagar. He further submits that originally his mother obtained planning permission for stilt + 2 floors from the Corporation of Chennai vide No.PPA/WDC08/01870/2010, dated 07.06.2010 and accordingly constructed and completed the same. However, there was some minor unintentional deviations in the said construction which had resulted in locking and sealing action by the Corporation of Chennai on 10.09.2011. The petitioner further submits that however on an appeal preferred to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.07.2012, was pleased to regularize his building by exempting several provisions of the Development Control Regulations and also directed the fifth respondent to grant approval to the said building in view of the exemption granted under Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Further, the Government had directed the Corporation of Chennai to deseal the building. 2. The petitioner further submits that in view of the exemption granted by the Government with respect to the provisions governing set back, spaces, FSI, Car parking and minimum plot extension, the building is fully eligible for issuance of completion certificate by the fifth respondent. The petitioner further submits that even though the building is structurally completed and qualified for providing service connection, some finishing work is yet to be completed for want of funds. However, an application was made to the fourth respondent on 16.04.2013 along with the copy of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.07.2012 granting exemptions together with all necessary charges germane for such provision of Electricity connection. 3. The petitioner further added that the fourth respondent while processing his application, returned the same vide their letter dated 24.06.2013 calling upon him to produce completion certificate from the fifth respondent along with few other compliances and accordingly returned his application and to resubmit it after such compliance. The petitioner further submits that he is willing and ready to comply with all the rectifications sought for by the fourth respondent except for the production of completion certificate from the fifth respondent. The petitioner further submits that he is willing and ready to comply with all the rectifications sought for by the fourth respondent except for the production of completion certificate from the fifth respondent. The petitioner further submits that even the planning permit that was directed by the Government to be issued by the fifth respondent is under process and kept pending inordinately by the fifth respondent. However, it is purely a formality in view of the exemption accorded by the Government. Therefore, the respondents/TNEB cannot insist and withhold effecting of electricity service connection for such reason, when the Government has positively indicated and directed the CMDA to grant approval. However, the petitioner undertakes to produce the said as and when accorded by the fifth respondent and therefore, withholding processes of electricity connection on that score would be totally unjustifiable and in contravention to Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act. 4. The petitioner further submits that the lent for the demand of CC to his building is fully qualified for considering Electricity service connection under the Regulation of 27 (1)(2) of Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Board and he is willing and ready to give any undertaking in the form of Affidavit or Bond if necessary as prescribed under the Distribution Code. The petitioner further submits that demand of CC said to be in pursuance to an observation made by the Division Bench in a Regularization Batch cases but for such observation, there is no legislative enactment or amendment to that effect justifying the demand of CC by the TNEB, neither under the Central Act nor under the State Act. The petitioner further submits that even the same Division Bench in a subsequent writ appeal filed by the TNEB was pleased to dismiss the same, holding that the deviations are minor in nature in the absence of any floor violations. Following the Division Bench decision, this Court was pleased to allow several writ petitions depending upon the nature of the deviations exempting floor violations and one such order in a recent case was passed in W.P.No.169 of 2013, dated 27.09.2012. 5. The petitioner further submits that in view of the G.O., granting exemption to his building, the said building in its entirety gets qualified for the issuance of completion certificate as there is no deviations warranting denial of completion certificate. 5. The petitioner further submits that in view of the G.O., granting exemption to his building, the said building in its entirety gets qualified for the issuance of completion certificate as there is no deviations warranting denial of completion certificate. However, the petitioner was asked to obtain and produce completion certificate for getting electricity service connection which is extra statutory in nature by driving him to comply with condition not found under the statute. The petitioner has been deprived of the basic amenity and his application for electricity is unnecessarily withheld for such reason and therefore, he has been put into irreparable hardship besides being unable to put the building into use. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a direction to the Electricity Board to produce new electricity connection. 6. The fourth respondent has filed a counter statement for himself and on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 stating that the petitioner and two others are the premises owners of the property situated at Door No.3/5, Dhandapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. He further submits that the petitioner has produced the planning permit issued by the Chennai Corporation during 2010 for the construction of stilt + 2 floors but the building constructed was stilt + 3 floors which is in deviation of approval plan and as the third floor has been constructed unauthorizedly, the building was locked and sealed by the Corporation on 10.09.2011. The fourth respondent further submits that in the G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.07.2012, issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development, direction were issued to Member Secretary / CMDA to issue planning permit and to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai to de-seal the premises for regularizing the building since deviation is found on the front and rear side and FSI area and floor deviation of the building in the above premises, for which the petitioner requested to issue Government Order. 7. The fourth respondent further submits that subsequently, the petitioner's request has been put-forth in the appeal committee convened on 19.04.2014, by the Tamil Nadu Housing Urban Development Department. It is observed that the petitioner constructed the third floor above the stilt + 2 floors unauthorizedly against the earlier approval obtained from Chennai Corporation and constructed the building which is intended for residential purpose. It is observed that the petitioner constructed the third floor above the stilt + 2 floors unauthorizedly against the earlier approval obtained from Chennai Corporation and constructed the building which is intended for residential purpose. The constructed building of third floor above the stilt + 2 floors are found with violation in respect of minimum plot extent FSIS, SSB, RSIS, FSI etc. He further submits that the Appeal Committee decided to advise the petitioner to remove the third floor and submit revised plan for consideration. Therefore, Appeal Committee decided to remit back the appeal to CMDA for submitting a report to Government and CMDA informed the petitioner that water treatment would not be allowed in the third floor and Gymnasium will be allowed to an extent of only 10% in the ground floor and as the FSI area is 2.10 as per Rules allowed 1.50 hence 0.60 excess. 8. The fourth respondent further submits that the appeal committee convened on 18.05.2012 in view of Thiru.V.Anand Thirtha and 2 others filing an appeal under Section 80 A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, before the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department considered the same and the appeal committee after perusing the records observed that the petitioner did not furnish the revised plan after removing the third floor as decided by the appeal committee earlier for consideration. However, the petitioner had pleaded (1) To provide Gymnasium in the first and second floor treating it as non FSI (2) To demolition of the study area in the first and second floor treating it as open terrace (3) To provide water treatment plant room in the third floor level. The committee observed that providing water treatment plant room for third floor is not feasible to consider. However the proposal of Gymnasium in the first and second floor may be considered as non FSI as the constructed building is meant for joint family. Since petitioner pleaded that he is willing to rectify and modify certain portions indicated by him, the committee decided to allow the appeal relaxing the relevant parameter FSI, plot extent, FSB, SSB on both side RSB car parking requirements for issue of planning permission by CMDA. Since petitioner pleaded that he is willing to rectify and modify certain portions indicated by him, the committee decided to allow the appeal relaxing the relevant parameter FSI, plot extent, FSB, SSB on both side RSB car parking requirements for issue of planning permission by CMDA. The committee also decided that the Chennai Corporation shall take action to de-seal the premises done by them so as to carry out rectification / modification as proposed by the petitioner and after which only necessary planning permission will be given. 9. The fourth respondent further submits that now the petitioner has produced the planning permit issued by the Chennai Corporation during 2010 for the construction of stilt + 2 floor seeking service connection and not complying with the direction of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.07.2012 issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department and the direction issued by the CMDA and as such, the petitioner has neither rectified / modified the construction as proposed by the petitioner in the appeal committee convened nor obtained necessary revised planning permission as directed by CMDA, seeking service connection with the false hope of getting completion certificate. He further submits that the intending consumer has to comply to Regulation 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code and Completion Certificate from CMDA is mandatory requirement in order to consider and effect service connection and also as per the instruction issued by Chief Engineer / Commercial of TANGEDCO, dated 03.12.2012. 10. The highly competent counsel, Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed a building at Old door No.3, New No.5, Dhandapani Street, Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-17, as per the sanctioned plan dated 07.06.2010 as per No.PPA/WDC08/01870/2010 for constructions of Stilt + 2 floors. He further submits that however, there was some minor unintentional deviations in the said construction, which had resulted in locking and sealing action by the Corporation of Chennai on 10.09.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that however on an appeal preferred before the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.07.2012, was pleased to regularize his building by exempting several provisions of the Development Control Regulations and also directed the fifth respondent to grant approval to the said building in view of the exemption granted under Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Further, the Government had directed the Corporation of Chennai to deseal the building. The learned counsel further submits that an application was made to the fourth respondent on 16.04.2013 along with the order copy of the G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.07.2012, granting exemptions together with all necessary charges germane for such provision of Electricity service connection. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the G.O., granting exemption to the said building, the building in its entirety gets qualified for the issuance of completion certificate as there is no deviations warranting denial of completion certificate. hence, the highly competent counsel, Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 11. The very competent counsel, Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 vehemently argued that the petitioner has produced the planning permit issued by the Chennai Corporation during 2010 for the construction of stilt + 2 floors but the building constructed was stilt + 3 floors which is in deviation of approval plan and as the third floor has been constructed unauthorizedly, the building was locked and sealed by the Corporation on 10.09.2011. He further submits that in G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.07.2012, issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development, direction were issued to Member Secretary / CMDA to issue planning permit and to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai to de-seal the premises for regularizing the building since deviation is found on the front and rear side and FSI area and floor deviation of the building in the above premises, for which the petitioner requested to issue Government Order. He further submits that the appeal committee convened on 18.05.2012 in view of Thiru.V.Anand Thirtha and 2 others filing an appeal under Section 80 A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, before the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department considered the same and the appeal committee after perusing the records observed that the petitioner did not furnish the revised plan after removing the third floor as decided by the appeal committee earlier for consideration. Hence, the highly competent counsel, Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar prays the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 12. The highly competent counsel, Mr.P.Tamilmani appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the production of completion certificate / no objection certificate from the fifth respondent is required by law and also required as per this Hon'ble Division Bench's order. Hence, the highly competent counsel, Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar prays the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 12. The highly competent counsel, Mr.P.Tamilmani appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the production of completion certificate / no objection certificate from the fifth respondent is required by law and also required as per this Hon'ble Division Bench's order. The petitioner himself had admitted in his affidavit that there are some deviations in the said construction. As such, it is evident that the building has not been constructed as per the sanctioned plan. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the above writ petition. The very competent counsel further submits that the petitioner has constructed stilt + 3 floors, but the approval was obtained only for construction of stilt + 2 floors. As such, the petitioner has grossly violated the building plan. 13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the affidavit of the petitioner and counter statement of the respondents 1 to 4, this Court directs the respondents 1 to 4 to provide electricity service connection to the residential building at Old door No.3, New No.5, Dhandapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, as per sanctioned plan Vide No.PPA/WDC08/01870/2010, dated 07.06.2010, only for stilt + 2 floors alone, without insisting on the completion certificate from the fifth respondent / CMDA. However, the fifth respondent is at liberty take legal proceedings against the petitioner for putting up the third floor, which was not mentioned in the approved plan. This Court directs the respondents 1 to 4 to provide electricity connection within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's application for electricity service connection, without insisting on the completion certificate / no objection certificate from the CMDA. 14. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.