Disposed

S.Subramani v. The Chairman Cum

Madras HC16 Aug 2017WP/21534/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a resident in possession of a house is entitled to electricity as a basic amenity even without title. The Court directed the landowner to apply for connection in its name, leaving the evicting civil proceedings unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 4th respondent to apply for service connection in its name within two weeks so the 3rd respondent can grant connection to the petitioners thereafter.

S.Subramani Vs The Chairman Cum — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.21534 of 2017

¶6

1.S.Subramani 2.Dandapani 3.K.Kumar 4.M.Saraswathi ... Petitioners Vs.

¶7

1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶8

NPKRR Maligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.The Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance),

¶9

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶10

Perambur Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. 3.The Assistant Engineer (Operation & Maintenance),

¶11

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶12

Lakshmipuram, Chennai – 600 099. 4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Somanathaswamy Thirukoil, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099. ... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to provide electricity connection to the respective petitioners' houses at Subash Nagar Extension, Puthagaram, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Rajendran

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilip Kumar,

¶17

Standing Counsel – TNEB (R1 to R3)

¶18

Mr.M.Maharaja, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) (R4)

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Mr.P.R.Dilip Kumar, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the 4^th respondent. By consent, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶21

2.The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to provide electricity connection to the respective petitioners' houses at Subash Nagar Extension, Puthagaram, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶22

3.It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the houses in Survey No.69/1, which belongs to Arulmigu Somanathaswamy Thirukoil, Kolathur and that they are living in the houses without electricity connection, hence, they applied for a service connection with the 3^rd respondent. However, the same was not granted for the reason that the 4^th respondent had objected for the grant of electricity connection.

¶23

4.Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 4^th respondent submitted that the 4^th respondent had already filed suits in O.S.Nos.95 to 101 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvottiyur against the petitioners for recovery of possession and the trial Court had also decreed the suits in favour of the 4^th respondent. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the decree passed in the suits, the 4^th respondent has also filed Execution Petitions in E.P.Nos.5 to 10 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvottiyur, which is posted for hearing on 12.09.2017.

¶24

5.This Court is of the view that even if the petitioners have no right or title over the property, they are entitled to get electricity connection, which is a basic amenity for dayto-day life.

¶25

6.The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that liberty may be given to the 4^th respondent Temple to apply for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

the service connection in the name of the Temple and the 3^rd respondent may be directed to give service connection in the name of the Temple viz., the 4^th respondent.

¶27

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no objection for granting service connection in the name of the 4^th respondent Temple.

¶28

8.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I direct the 4^th respondent Temple to apply for electricity connection in their name in respect of the houses, which are in possession of the petitioners, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the applications to be submitted by the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent shall grant electricity connection to the houses in which the petitioners are in possession, within a period of two weeks thereafter. By granting electricity connection, the petitioners shall not claim any equity or right or title over the properties in any manner whatsoever. It is also made clear that the petitioners are bound by the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.Nos.95 to 101 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvottiyur. It is also open to the 4^th respondent Temple to prosecute the Execution Petitions in accordance with law.

¶29

9.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶30

Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶33

NPKRR Maligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶34

2.The Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance),

¶35

Tamil Nadu Generation and

¶36

Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶37

Perambur Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

3.The Assistant Engineer (Operation & Maintenance),

¶40

Tamil Nadu Generation and

¶41

Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶42

Lakshmipuram, Chennai – 600 099.

¶43

4.The Executive Officer,

¶44

Arulmigu Somanathaswamy Thirukoil,

¶45

Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶46

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.59107

¶47

+1cc to M/s.P.R.Dhilipkumar, Advocate SR.No.58929

¶48

W.P.No.21534 of 2017
SDR 31.08.2017

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Subramani v. The Chairman Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Subramani v. The Chairman Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Travel New Services(India) Vs Airports Authority of India

P.Sindhuja Vs B.Saravana Kumar

Mr.C.Sundara Raj, Vs The General Manager, The Tamil

Mr.R.Muthusami Vs The District Collector

M/s.Pattur Jamia Mosque, Vs The Tamil Nadu

J. Janakiraman Vs The Tahsildar