Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The Writ Petitioner submits that she is in the permanent resident address of Korattur Village. The Revenue Authority allotted Anubantham Patta infavour of her to an extent of 3 cents of residing Plot in Survey No.1128/1(Natham Poramboke) in the same village, allotment Patta dated 18.08.1996, when she obtained the Patta from Tahsildar, Ambattur Municipallity. She has taken possession and build the Kuccha house and residing in the above address till date without any hindrance. She is a widow, and she has no other residing place to reside in except the above area till date. 2. The petitioner additionally added that she is entitled to a perinela supply of water and electric energy and hence she has applied for new electricity connection before the second respondent on 20.04.2014 and the second respondent received her application and rejected the electricity application on the ground of invalid reason, the denial attitude by the second respondent states in reply letter that she does not have address proof and Tax receipt is a baseless reason, against the natural justice and the second respondent violated the Constitution of India because she is a senior citizen of India, her son also did not take care of her while being so the second respondent as Superior Officer did not mind about her basic amenities. 3. When she applied with the electricity application before the second respondent she had made a few clerical mistakes anyway what are the procedure as followed by the electricity department, she will follow and is ready to rectify any clerical mistake. Unfortunately the second respondent rejected her application which is unwarranted and again dispute arose in reply letter Column 2 to 3 and 5 to 7 it is not at all connected to her property in any way. She is ready to follow the basic rules as provided by the electricity board. 4. The second respondent has not yet provided basic infrastructure to the poor people like her, and is now not accepting her request for providing electricity connection and the second respondent has given reply letter to her dated 05.05.2013 and informed her that the application for service connection would be not be available for seven reasons. 5. 4. The second respondent has not yet provided basic infrastructure to the poor people like her, and is now not accepting her request for providing electricity connection and the second respondent has given reply letter to her dated 05.05.2013 and informed her that the application for service connection would be not be available for seven reasons. 5. The second respondent rejected her application on the ground of seven grounds, she has not full filled it against the electricity department because the first and fourth column. As in the application states the above mistake is ready to be rectified at any stage. But other five submissions stated by the second respondent is unwarranted and against the justice and she is not able to complete the other averments because it is contrary in her dispute, it is crystal clear that she had obtained Patta from the local authority and enjoying the possession without any dispute. The second respondent is not prepared to hear the requests of her and knowing fully well that the grandsons and granddaughters of the petitioner are students and facing their examinations, the second respondent has not provided the basic amenities and not given any justifiable reasons. She is entitled for the said Electricity Service Connection to and in her name. She established a prima-facie and balance of convenience also lies in her favour. Hence, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. 6. The counter statements filed by the respondents are as follows: The second respondent submits that the petitioner submitted the application for the electricity service connection and the same was received on 20.04.2013. This respondent further submits that prior to this, one N. Rajendran, S/o. Natesan has given an objection letter dated 03.05.2012 and 03.01.2013 saying that the property in S.No.1128/1 (Natham Poramboke) Korattur Village, does not belong to the petitioner herein and the property is yet to be partitioned and before partition no service connection should be effected. The respondent submits that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of the said N. Rajendran who has raised the objection not to give Electricity Service to the petitioner. The said N. Rajendran is a necessary party for better understanding of this writ petition. On this short ground the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The respondent submits that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of the said N. Rajendran who has raised the objection not to give Electricity Service to the petitioner. The said N. Rajendran is a necessary party for better understanding of this writ petition. On this short ground the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The respondent after considering the application of the petitioner and the said N. Rajendran and issued a letter dated 27.04.2013, calling for the petitioner to rectify the defects in her application. In the said letter it was stated that the application must be filled in completely, the application must be enclosed with the title deed or property tax receipt or sewage or water receipt. The petitioner must also obtain a No Objection letter from the Tahsildar and No Objection Certificate from the VAO already obtained by the petitioner is not sufficient. The petitioner must indicate the way in order to give electricity service to the premises in S.No.1128/1 Korattur Village. It is also stated that the address in Ration Card enclosed with the application is different from the address, where the petitioner is seeking for electricity service connection. 8. The respondent submits that the petitioner failed to rectify the above said defects, even after it was sought for, but approached this Court, in order to get a Electricity Service connection without even complying with the conditions prescribed in the terms and conditions of electricity supply. 9. The respondent additionally submit that since the petitioner is seeking electricity service for the land (i.e.) Natham Poromboke it is necessary for the petitioner to execute a indemnity bond along with No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar and No service connection can be granted without the above said documents. It is submitted that the averments in Paragraphs 4,5,6,7 are denied and puts the petitioner to the strict proof of the same. 10. The highly competent counsel, Mr. M. Saravanan, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is permanently residing at Plot No.1128 in the Korattur Village. Originally the land was classified as Poromboke and thereafter the Revenue Tahsildar had issued Patta in the name of the petitioner on 18.08.1996. As such, she is the sole owner of the property. The petitioner has applied for new electricity service connection to the 2nd respondent herein on 20.04.2014. Originally the land was classified as Poromboke and thereafter the Revenue Tahsildar had issued Patta in the name of the petitioner on 18.08.1996. As such, she is the sole owner of the property. The petitioner has applied for new electricity service connection to the 2nd respondent herein on 20.04.2014. The same was rejected by the 2nd respondent stating that no proper address proof had been given and that no tax receipts are produced for the said house. The very competent counsel further submits that the petitioner is aged about 82 years and she is permanently residing in the said premises without any third party interference. Further, the petitioner had obtained patta in the year 1996. As such, she is having civil rights as owner to the said property. The electricity supply is a basic amenity and therefore the petitioner is entitled to obtain the same from the respondents. Hence, the learned counsel entreats to Court to allow the writ petition. 11. The highly competent counsel Mr. P.R. Dilip Kumar, appearing for the respondents submits that one Rajendran has given an objection letter dated 03.05.2012 and 03.01.2013 saying that the said property comprised in S.F.No.1128/1, classified as Natham Poromboke in Korattur Village and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to receive any service connection from the respondents. The rival claimant viz., Rajendran is also a necessary party before this Court. The petitioner had not furnished relevant documents along with her application in order to prove that she is the owner of the property. Further, the Revenue Officials namely Tahsildar or VAO had not certified that she is the owner of the property and occupied the same as lawful owner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's application for obtaining her electricity service connection had been rejected since an adequate documentary proof had not been filed. Therefore, the very competent counsel, Mr. P.R. Dilip Kumar, requests this Court the dismiss the above writ petition. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers furnished by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow the above writ petition and on condition that the petitioner has to submit her application along with relevant residence proof namely voter list, ration card, Patta and house tax receipts to the 2nd respondent herein. After receipt of the said application, the 2nd respondent is directed to provide new electricity service connection to the petitioner's premises after due verification. 13. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed with the above observations.