2.The case of the Petitioner is that he has purchased a porperty in S.No.175/10 and 175/7A2, measuring about 0.69.00 hectares, situated in Melaiyur Village, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District in the year 2005. The Revenue Authorities have granted patta in Patta No.829 and he has been enjoying the property and also dug a bore-well in S.No.175/10. He applied for agricultural electricity service connection with the third respondent on 20.7.2006. The first respondent had directed the Petitioner to remit Rs.50/- towards registration charges and the same was paid. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner received a communication in the year 2007 from the first respondent stating that the Petitioner has to remit a sum of Rs.500/- to the third respondent within 30 days for getting electricity service connection under the Self finance scheme recommended by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner has also remitted the same to the third respondent. Thereafter, the respondents have not taken any steps to give electricity service connection based on the application submitted by the Petitioner on 20.7.2006 and the Petitioner was driven from pillar to post for so many years, wherein, the petitioner get information that 40 agricultural electricity service connections have been given to the general public by the respondents and on enquiry, it was found that persons who applied much behind the Petitioner was given the agricultural electricity service connection. Thus, the Petitioner was left out in lurch. When he enquired about his application which is pending for more than 13 years, the third respondent told that he should do the needful immediately and to his shock and surprise, the Petitioner is not provided with agricultural electricity service connection. Hence the Petitioner made a representation to the respondents. On receipt of the said representation, the impugned communication, dated 22.3.2018 was sent to the Petitioner stating that the said bore-well is not in existence in S.No.175/10 and also has not taken any steps to SF change by submitting revenue records and hence, the Petitioner's application is recommended for rejection, to the first respondent. Aggrieved over the said order of rejection recommended by the third respondent, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition raising various grounds.
