Writ petition challenging an order denying electricity connection for a marriage hall. Court held respondents cannot withhold connection due to father's pending litigation. Order quashed; matter remitted with time for reconsideration.
Impugned order quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration; respondents directed to decide within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.16558 of 2013
K.Sakthivairavan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Kamuthi,
Ramanathapuram District.
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Perunali – 623 115,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 31.08.2013 made in AEE/Perunali/File.A.No.219/2013 on the file of the Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Perunali – 623 115, Ramanathapuram District, the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to effect electricity supply to the premises belonging to the petitioner bearing Door No.10/122 in S.No.42/1A, Perunali, Ramanathapuram District without reference to the alleged dues payable by his father.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondents :Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 31.08.2013, made in AEE/Perunali/File.A.No.219/2013 on the file of the Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Perunali – 623 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 115, Ramanathapuram District, the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently directing the second respondent to
2
effect electricity supply to the premises belonging to the petitioner bearing Door No.10/122 in S.No.42/1A, Perunali, Ramanathapuram District without reference to the alleged dues payable by his father.
2.The petitioner having constructed a marriage hall ( Kalyana Mandapam ) at Door No.10/122 in S.No.42/1A, Perunali, Ramanathapuram District had approached the respondents for effecting electricity service connection. The said request was turned down by the impugned order dated 31.08.2013. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3.Heard both sides.
4.On reading the impugned order, this Court finds that the second respondent has given the following reasons for not considering the request of the petitioner for effecting service connection. The reasons according to the impugned order reads as follows:
“Vw;fdnt jq;fSf;F kpd; ,izg;g[ tHq;Ftjw;F muR tHf;fwpQhplk; Mnyhrid nfl;fg;gl;l epiyapy; fle;j 12.8.2013 md;W muR tHf;fwpQh; fUj;Jiu bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,f; fUj;Jiuapd; go jw;nghJ epYitapy; cs;s jq;fs; jfg;gdhh; jpU. A.P.fhspKj;J mth;fshy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;Ffs; Kot[f;F tUk; tiu jq;fSf;F g[jpa kpd; ,izg;g[ VJk; tHq;f ,ayhJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Vdnt ,e;j tpguq;fs; jq;fspd; jftYf;fhf ,jd; K:yk; bjhpag;gLj;jg;gLfpwJ.”
Whatever be the reason for non-considering the request of the petitioner for effecting service connection, such reason shall be supported by law in this regard.
5.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that there are certain dues payable by the father of the petitioner to the respondents for the default committed either by the father of the petitioner or the Company wherein the petitioner's father was one of the Director. In order to recover the said dues payable by the petitioner's father, the respondents have every right to withhold the very service connection to the Marriage Hall.
6.In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has constructed a marriage hall in his own land at Survey No.42/1A at Perunali, Ramanathapuram District, which was settled by his father as his personal property, for which fresh service connection is required. Assuming that the petitioner's father is having some due to the respondents, for which litigation has been initiated and pending before the Court concerned, and for that reason the service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connection sought for by the petitioner cannot be denied.
3
7.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the imports of the impugned order dated 31.08.2013.
8.Whatever be the reason for not effecting service connection to the petitioner, the predominant reason as is reflected in the impugned order is the one extracted in vernacular. According to the respondents, the service connection as sought for cannot be considered and granted till the litigation between the respondents and the petitioner's father are totally over one way or other. Further, on a perusal of the said order, this Court is the opinion that such reason cannot be adduced by the respondents for refusing the request of the petitioner for the service connection. If at all the respondents have got specific reason supported by law, the same can be adduced and once such order refusing to give service connection with plausible reason is passed, it is for the petitioner to meet the same in the manner known to law. Further, the present reason assigned in the impugned order that till the litigation between the parties are over i.e., between the petitioner's father and the Department service connection shall not be effected to the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court is totally unjustifiable and therefore, for that reason the impugned order cannot be sustained.
9.In the result, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is now remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration. During the process of reconsideration, it is open to the respondents to ask whatever clarification they want from the petitioner and once such clarification is sought for, the petitioner shall produce the same with evidential documents to substantiate his claim that he would be entitled to get separate service connection for his newly constructed Marriage Hall ( Kalyana Mandapam ) and considering the evidential documents to be filed, the eligibility of the petitioner to get a new service connection to his premises shall be decided by the respondents. Such exercise as indicated above shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10.With these directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extend indicated above.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
4
sj To
1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Kamuthi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Perunali – 623 115, Ramanathapuram District.
GJM/MR/SAR-II-6.3.17-4p-3C
W.P.(MD)No.16558 of 2013 22.02.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents can refuse service connection to petitioner based on pending litigation regarding dues payable by his father.
Whether the ground that service connection is deferred until father's litigation concludes is justified under law.
K. Sakthivairavan
Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
