Allowed

S.Karpagam, v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Madras HC27 Aug 2020WP/6342/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for mandamus to provide electricity connection to petitioner's premises. Court held non-ownership is not a bar to connection. Directed petitioners to submit indemnity bond and undertaking under Section 27(4) of Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Code to prove occupation, after which connection must be provided within four weeks. Maintains consistency with earlier orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to execute indemnity bond and undertaking under Section 27(4) of Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Code; second respondent to grant domestic electricity connection within four wee

S.Karpagam, Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

CORAM

¶3

Date : 27.08.2020

¶4

THE HONURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.6342 of 2020

¶6

Mrs.S.Karpagam, W/o.Sekar,

¶7

No.52-B, Second Street, Bharath Rajiv Gandhi Nagar 1^st Street, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099. ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board,

¶10

rep. By its Chairman,

¶11

10^th Floor, N.P.K.K.R. Maligai,

¶12

144 Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶13

The Assistant Engineer (O & M),

¶14

Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Lakshmipuram, TANGEDCO/CEDC/NORTH, Chennai – 600 099. ... Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to to provide electricity connection (domestic purpose) to the petitioner's premises, viz., No.52-B, Second Street, Bharath Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099., based on his application dated 02.01.2020

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Sudalaiyandi

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilip Kumar

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is filed for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner based on the application made by the petitioner on 02.01.2020

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property and the property is being assessed to property tax and there is also water and sewerage connection given to the property. That apart, the petitioner claims that he has obtained ration card, voter I.D. card and Adhar Card which will establish that the petitioner is in occupation of the property. The petitioner made an application to the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent seeking for electricity connection. Since the same

¶21

was not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking appropriate directions .

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the adjacent owners of the property already approached this Court with a similar prayer and this Court had directed the Electricity Department to entertain the application and take a decision on supply of electricity within a time frame fixed by this Court. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the following Orders :

¶23

Order in W.P.No.1559 of 2015, dated 03.07.2015

¶24

Order in W.P.No.27924 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018

¶25

Order in W.P.No.27924 of 2018, dated 20.12.2018

¶26

Order in W.P.No.4543 of 2019, dated 07.05.2019

¶27

Order in W.P.No.12971 of 2019, dated 06.06.2019

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge who dealt with a similar writ petition dismissed the writ petition while passing Orders in W.P.No.18163 of 2019 holding that if the petitioner is not able to prove ownership of the property, the petitioner will not be entitled for electricity connetion from the Department.

¶29

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

¶30

It is seen from the earlier Orders passed by this Court that in every Order this Court has held that not being an owner cannot be a ground to deny electricity connection and directed the respondents to take into account the other documents that will prove occupation of the petitioner in the premises and get an indemnity bond and an undertaking as required under section 27(4) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Code and thereafter, provide electricity connection.

¶31

This Court does not want to take a different view and it is better if some consistency is maintained in line with the earlier Orders passed by this Court.

¶32

In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to execute an indemnity bond and an undertaking as required under section 27(4) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Code and produce the same along with all other relevant documents and on such submission of the documents, the second respondent is directed to satisfy himself with regard to the occupation of the premises and thereafter, provide domestic electricity service connection to the premises of the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶33

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

¶34

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶35

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vrc
To
1. The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board,
10 th Floor, N.P.K.K.R. Maligai,
144 Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Assistant Engineer (O & M),
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Lakshmipuram, TANGEDCO/CEDC/NORTH,
Chennai – 600 099.
W.P.No.6342 of 2020
SVI(CO)
GMY(20/10/2020)

¶36

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

S.Karpagam, v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karpagam, v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Ananthalakshmi Vs Government of Tamil nadu

A.Sheik Mohammed Sathik Vs The District Collector

Mr.T.Kuppu Vs The District collector

P.M.Siddhayan Vs The District Collector

Mr.N.Vijayarangan, Vs The Director of Elementary Education

M.Dhanushkoti Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board