Allowed

Ramasamy v. the Assistant Engineer (Rural

Madras HC24 Oct 2017WA/1391/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Assistant Engineer was not competent to demand an ownership certificate as it cannot adjudicate title. The Court allowed the writ appeal, directing the appellants to execute a bond under the Electricity Distribution Code to indemnify TANGEDCO while allowing temporary enjoyment of the connection until a civil decree resolves the title dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directing execution of an indemnity bond, allowing temporary enjoyment of the service connection, and allowing the writ appeal to the extent indicated.

Ramasamy Vs the Assistant Engineer (Rural — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.10.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN And THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.A.No.1391 of 2015
1.Mr.Ramasamy
2.Kalamani ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Assistant Engineer (Rural-East),
Tamilnadu Generation & Distribution Corporation
Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
Udumalpet – 642 126,
Tiruppur District.
2.T.Kanagaraj ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:

¶8

Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8261 of 2014 dated 09.10.2014.

¶9

For Appellants : Mr.B.Ramamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Raameshuwar for R1 Mr.S.Gunasekaran for R2 J U D G M E N T

¶10

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.)

¶11

The Assistant Engineer (Rural-East), Tamil Nadu Generation

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO), Udumalpet, granted service connection to the appellants in respect of the premises bearing No.7/189 in S.F.No.312/2. The connection was given in the year 2012 on the basis of the documents produced by the appellants. Thereafter, the second respondent submitted objection before the TANGEDCO contending that the appellants have no matter of right in respect of the land and the building and as such, the electricity connection should be disconnected. The jurisdictional Engineer issued notice to the appellants on 28.01.2014 calling upon them to produce the ownership certificate. The notice was challenged in W.P.No.8261 of 2014. The learned Single Judge agreed with the contention taken by the appellants. However, the learned Judge directed the appellants to produce the ownership certificate within a period of six months. Feeling aggrieved by the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge for production of ownership certificate, the appellants are before this Court.

¶15

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. We have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

3.There is no dispute that the appellants have got service connection on the basis of the house-tax receipts and other documents produced by them. The connection was given in the year 2012. The second respondent appears to have submitted objection to the first respondent contending that the property absolutely belongs to him and as such the appellants have no matter of right, either to occupy the building or to avail service connection. The first respondent on the basis of the objection submitted by the second respondent issued notice to the appellants calling upon them to produce the ownership certificate. It was the said notice which was challenged before the writ Court.

¶19

4.The first respondent wanted the appellants to produce the title

¶20

deed and the ownership certificate. The first respondent is not the competent authority to decide the title in respect of the property in question. Even if the appellants are not the title holders of the

¶21

property still there is a provision under the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code to give connection after obtaining a bond. Clause 27(4) of the Distribution Code permits the TANGEDCO to grant service connection, in case the owner refuses to give consent. In such a case, the consumer shall produce proof for lawful occupation of the

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

premises. It is a matter of record that only on production of certain documents relating to the possession of the property, the first respondent granted service connection to the appellants. The appellants therefore satisfied the condition for giving them service connection. Even if it is made out that there is a dispute to the ownership of the property in question, still the appellants are entitled

¶25

to enjoy the service connection till a decision is taken by the concerned Court in respect of title.

¶26

5.We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge

¶27

was not correct in directing the appellants to produce the ownership certificate from the concerned authority.

¶28

6.The appellants are directed to execute a bond as per Annexure

¶29

III of the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code agreeing to indemnify the TANGEDCO in the event of deciding ultimately that they are not the owners of the property. However, we make it clear that this order

¶30

would not stand in the way of the parties from approaching the civil court to declare the title. It is needless to mention that any decree passed in the civil Court in respect of the ownership would have a bearing on the service connection given to the appellants.

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

¶33

7.The intra court appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

¶34

above. No costs.

¶35

[K.K.S.,J.] [P.V.,J.]
24.10.2017
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
To
1.The Assistant Engineer (Rural-East),
Tamilnadu Generation & Distribution Corporation
Ltd., (TANGEDCO)
Udumalpet – 642 126,
Tiruppur District.

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

¶38

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J. And P.VELMURUGAN,J. pri

¶39

W.A.No.1391 of 2015

¶40

24.10.2017

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

Ramasamy v. the Assistant Engineer (Rural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy v. the Assistant Engineer (Rural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.S.Ramakrishna Vs S.Sethuraman(Deceased)

T.R.T.Gunasekaran Vs the Joint Commissioner

Tamilnadu Small Industries Vs s. parvathi

E.Nandagopal Vs E.Ellamal

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs S.Kanagalakshmi

Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly Vs E.Edwing, Advocate