Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 691 (MAD)

K. P. Kailasam v. District Collector Erode

2016-02-22

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. S.K. Rameshuwar, for respondents 1 to 4 and 8, Mr. R. Nalliyappan for Respondents 5 to 7 and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 18.05.2010 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent by order dated 16.07.2010 and the consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 02.04.2013 and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to register the Agriculture Service connection based on the petitioners application dated 17.12.2009. 3. The petitioners is said to have Kalingarayan Ayacut lands in R.S.F.No.269/14B, 269/10, 269/12, 269/14A2 and 270/2A of Punjai Kalamangalam Village and they have joint rights for irrigation through well in R.S.F.No.270/2B. The District Collector, Erode by proceedings dated 30.11.2009 had granted permission to the petitioners for drawing water from the said well with the help of 3 BHP motor. The petitioners have submitted an application to the authorities to permit them to substitute the motor which is presently functioning with an oil engine by an electric motor for which purpose they have made an application for grant of Agricultural electricity service connection on 17.12.2009. The water is proposed to be pumped out of the well situated in RSF.No.270/2B. It is an admitted fact that a pipeline passes through other private party lands and it is not in dispute that such pipelines were in existence for several years. By the impugned proceedings, the official respondents have insisted upon the petitioners to produce No Objection Certificate from the other private parties as the pipe line is to pass through the said lines. 4. Prima facie, the insistence of No objection certificate from the private parties does not arise, since it is not in dispute that the pipelines were already in existence. Now, the petitioners only seeks for electricity connection to draw water from the said well by using an electric motor instead of the motor operated with oil engine as stated by the petitioners. Therefore, the question of insisting upon No objection certificate from the private respondents does not arise. 5. Now, the petitioners only seeks for electricity connection to draw water from the said well by using an electric motor instead of the motor operated with oil engine as stated by the petitioners. Therefore, the question of insisting upon No objection certificate from the private respondents does not arise. 5. In order to make the factual position clear, this Court issued a direction to the respondent Board on 02.12.2015, directing the Board to furnish specific information as to whether there is already a pipeline in existence through which the petitioners is stated to be drawing water with the help of oil engine. Pursuant to such order, an inspection has been conducted and an additional affidavit has been filed by the Superintending Engineer, from which it came to light that there is already a existing pipeline through other party land and the petitioners has been drawing water through the said line with the help of oil engine. In order to make the factual position clearer, another direction was issued on 04.02.2016, by directing the respondent Board to specifically state as to the impact of drawal of water, if permission is granted to the petitioners to switch over to an electric motor. Further, the Board was directed to inform the court as to whether the respondents 5 to 7 have given any application for grant of service connection. Pursuant to such direction, the Superintending Engineer has filed an affidavit dated 22.02.2016, stating that there is no impact to pump water through electric motor instead of oil engine. 6. Thus, factual position which emerges is that there can be no objection raised by private parties viz respondents 5 to 7 for the application made by the petitioners for grant of electricity service connection. Now it has to be seen as to whether, the respondents 5 to 7 have submitted an application. The Superintending Engineer in the counter affidavit states that no records could be traced for any application registered in the respondent name or respondents 5 to 7. Further, it is stated that there is one agriculture service connection already effected in the name of 5th respondent in the same well and it is being utilized by respondents 5 to 7. Further, by referring to the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Code, in particular Clause 27(2), it is submitted that co-owners consent is necessary for registering the application. 7. Further, it is stated that there is one agriculture service connection already effected in the name of 5th respondent in the same well and it is being utilized by respondents 5 to 7. Further, by referring to the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Code, in particular Clause 27(2), it is submitted that co-owners consent is necessary for registering the application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to substantiate the stand taken by the Superintending Engineer in the counter affidavit, has filed a copy of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 18.01.2009, to show that there is already a electricity connection in the name of the 5th respondent for the well situated in RSF.No.270/2B. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 submitted that the stand taken by the Superintending Engineer in the counter affidavit 22.02.2016 as well as the stand taken by the petitioners is factually incorrect and the well in which there is already a service connection is situated in RSF.No.268 and it is not in RSF.270/2B as stated by the Superintending Engineer in the counter affidavit. However, this issue cannot be decided in this writ petition, since this is a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings of the official respondent pertaining to the petitioners application for grant of service connection. Therefore, if the respondents 5 to 7 submit that there is any factual error committed by the respondents 2 to 4, it is for the respondents 5 to 7 to appear before the Authority and demonstrate and clarify the factual discrepancies. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner application for grant of electricity service connection based on their application dated 17.12.2009, in accordance with relevant regulations, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be a further direction to the respondents 5 to 7 to appear before the 2nd respondent produce necessary documents to substantiate their stand, that the well for which service connection is granted is situated in RSF.No.268 and not RSF.270/2B as stated by the 2nd respondent. If necessary the 2nd respondent can direct his subordinate officers to conduct an inspection and thereafter consider the case of the respondents 5 to 7 in accordance with the relevant Distribution code. No costs.