Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2148 (MAD)

A. Jayaraman v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

2014-07-16

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in f/vz;/br/bgh.-, g-jpU-tc-nfh g[fhh;-vz;/81-2010 dated 26.07.2010, quash the same and consequently for a direction to the first and second respondents to provide service connection to the petitioner's agricultural land in Survey No.72/1B in Konasamudram village, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he has applied for service connection by making an application in the year 1991. During the year 2004, he has sold one acre of the land comprised in Survey No.72/1C along with Service Connection No.22, well and pump-set. The respondent electricity board, by proceedings dated 27.09.2009 required the petitioner to remit the amount for service connection. The petitioner submitted an application seeking service connection for Survey Nos.72/1C and 72/1B. According to the petitioner, the original application was made on the basis that he was enjoying both the properties. The petitioner submitted that the Electricity Board, instead of giving servicing connection to him, given connection to the third respondent herein, based on the application and other details furnished by the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the said action, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29958/2008 seeking service connection to his property and the writ petition was disposed of on 27.04.2010 directing him to submit a necessary representation to the Electricity Board and the Electricity Board was directed to consider his case. He made a representation on 07.06.2010 and the same was rejected on 26.07.2010 on the ground that the property in Survey No.72/1C does not belong to the petitioner and it belongs to some other person, namely the third respondent, who is the owner of the said property. Inspite of his clarification by means of a representation that the property in Survey No.72/1C has been sold and he sought for service connection to irrigate the land in Survey No.72/1B, the Electricity Board did not adhere to the request and passed the impugned order, which shows the total non-application of mind on their part. 4. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that only if the property is in the name of the petitioner, service connection could be given and since he had sold the property, based on the application given earlier in 1991, the service connection could not be given to the petitioner. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that only if the property is in the name of the petitioner, service connection could be given and since he had sold the property, based on the application given earlier in 1991, the service connection could not be given to the petitioner. 5. The 3rd respondent submitted that there is a dispute between the Electricity Board and the petitioner and she is no way connected with this issue and since she has been made as a party to the case, she prayed that because of the dispute between the two parties, her service connection could not be disconnected. She has further stated that she has not made any application for service connection and it is based on the application made by the petitioner, the service connection was given to her. 6. Heard all the parties. 7. The petitioner, with bona fide assumption that the service connection would be given to Survey No.72/1C and the service could be utilised to both the survey numbers, has applied for service connection in Survey No.72/1C. In the meantime, he has sold the property. The 3rd respondent has got connection based on the application made by the writ petitioner. The Electricity Board has given service connection to the 3rd respondent herein, when the 3rd respondent has not made any application. Based on the application of the petitioner, service connection has been given to the third respondent. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that, if any fresh application is made now, he has to wait for another 20 years, as the application submitted by him in the year 1991 has been scrutinised and processed after more than a decade. Based on the application of the petitioner, service connection has been given to the third respondent. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that, if any fresh application is made now, he has to wait for another 20 years, as the application submitted by him in the year 1991 has been scrutinised and processed after more than a decade. When the Electricity Board is able to give service connection to the third respondent based on the application made by the petitioner, for which neither the petitioner nor the third respondent can be blamed or faulted with, the Electricity Board is bound to give priority to the petitioner in giving service connection to his land in Survey No.72/1B, if a fresh application is made within 15 days from today and the original seniority with regard to the service connection has got to be maintained for the purpose of giving service connection and it should be done as early as possible before effecting any service connection to the persons, who have applied subsequent to the application of petitioner in 1991. It is further directed that first priority should be given to the petitioner, if a proper and necessary application is made along with the documents that may be demanded/required by the Electricity Board in terms of the Code or Regulation. Such exercise is directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible. In that process, the third respondent’s service connection need not be disturbed, if there are no irregularities except the fact that she has not applied for the service connection. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.